Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Adrian Furnham
 -- 1354 2023-06-01 02:27:08 |
2 format correct
Jessie Wu
 Meta information modification 1354 2023-06-01 02:50:13 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Cuppello, S.; Treglown, L.; Furnham, A. Relationship between Personality and Intelligence. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45087 (accessed on 20 April 2024).
Cuppello S, Treglown L, Furnham A. Relationship between Personality and Intelligence. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45087. Accessed April 20, 2024.
Cuppello, Stephen, Luke Treglown, Adrian Furnham. "Relationship between Personality and Intelligence" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45087 (accessed April 20, 2024).
Cuppello, S., Treglown, L., & Furnham, A. (2023, June 01). Relationship between Personality and Intelligence. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45087
Cuppello, Stephen, et al. "Relationship between Personality and Intelligence." Encyclopedia. Web. 01 June, 2023.
Relationship between Personality and Intelligence
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jintelligence11060102

There are two major theories in this area. First, compensation theory suggests that conscientiousness acts as a “coping/reimbursing strategy” for less intelligent, but ambitious and competitive, people in particular settings. Thus, relatively less intelligent individuals may become more methodical, organised, thorough, and persistent (i.e., conscientious) to compensate for their relative lack of intelligence in a highly competitive educational or work environment. That is, they can achieve as much as bright people by simply working harder and smarter. Alternatively, relatively more intelligent people may tend to succeed based on their cognitive efficiency, rather than strenuous effort or persistent effort and organisation.

: personality intelligence facets compensation personality

1. Introduction

There is longstanding interest in the relationship between personality and intelligence (Ackerman and Heggestad 1997; Bédard and Le Corff 2020; Eysenck 1998; Cattell 1971; Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham 2004, 2006, 2008; DeYoung 2011, 2020; Kretzschmar et al. 2018; Major et al. 2014; Murray et al. 2014; Rammstedt et al. 2018; Reeve et al. 2006; Schermer et al. 2020; Zeidner and Matthews 2000; Ziegler et al. 2012). The relationship has been investigated in children and young adults (Johann and Karbach 2022) as well as in older adults (Gow et al. 2005). There is also an interesting and relevant literature linking intelligence with creativity (Corazza and Lubart 2021), dark-side traits (Lau et al. 2023), as well as examining how both personality and intelligence contribute to outcome measurements, such as work success (Macke et al. 2022).
Researchers have also developed theories regarding why certain traits (e.g., conscientiousness, openness) are related, albeit marginally, to intelligence (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham 2004; Rammstedt et al. 2018). The field has been reviewed (Anglim et al. 2022), and indeed there has been a special issue of this journal dedicated to the topic (Colom et al. 2019), as well as numerous other relevant papers (Demetriou et al. 2018; Willoughby et al. 2023).
There have been many differences in these studies with regard to the size and representativeness of the samples tested, as well as, perhaps more importantly, the nature of the tests used (Ackerman and Heggestad 1997; Furnham 2017a, 2017b; Furnham and Treglown 2018). It is not very easy to obtain a large, representative sample to test these hypotheses that can be traced over time, particularly using well known and robust intelligence tests, which often require up to an hour to complete (Beauducel et al. 2007; Gignac 2015; Johnson et al. 2008; Lohman and Lakin 2011). Further, as others have, Reeve and Blacksmith (2009) argued that an understanding of intelligence–personality associations requires the variance due to ‘g’ to be separated from the variance due to narrow cognitive abilities. Equally, it has been argued and demonstrated that it is important to examine the possibility of nonlinear relationships between the two variables.

2. Two Theories

There is some evidence for compensation theory. Moutafi et al. (2004) found conscientiousness to be more highly, but significantly negatively, correlated with fluid intelligence than crystallised intelligence, consistent with their theory. However, Wood and Englert (2009) found conscientious was negatively correlated with fluid and crystallised intelligence. Murray et al. (2014) argued and demonstrated that the true association between conscientiousness and IQ may be zero or positive at the population level but that the use of selected research samples has sometimes resulted in the appearance of a negative association. More recently, Harris-Watson et al. (2022) tested employee samples and found, in three of four samples, that the results supported a “nuanced compensatory mechanism”, showing that conscientiousness compensates for low to moderate GMA, but high conscientiousness may be detrimental to task performance in high-GMA individuals. Clearly, there remains much dispute over this theory.
von Stumm (2018) proposed an investment theory of adult intelligence, which posits that individual differences in knowledge attainment results from people’s differences in cognitive ability and their propensity to apply and invest that ability. These traits she referred to as investment personality traits. Thus, some traits, such as openness to experience, are related to IQ. von Stumm and Ackerman (2013) identified 34 trait constructs and corresponding scales that refer to intellectual investment, which were classified into different trait categories. These constructs included intellectual curiosity, abstract thinking, openness, absorption, ambiguity, novelty seeking, and social curiosity. In their meta-analysis of 112 studies with an overall sample of 60,097 participants, they found that investment traits were mostly positively associated with adult intellect markers ranging from 0 to .58, with an average estimate of .30. They concluded, however, that the strength of investment–intellect associations differs across trait scales and markers of intellect. In one study, Woods et al. (2019) found evidence for the theory using the California Personality Inventory (CPI).
Others have suggested that certain traits relate not so much to ability (IQ) but rather to the test-taking situation. For instance, it has been demonstrated that neuroticism is negatively correlated with both self-assessed and test-derived, IQ because test-anxiety influences performance (Furnham 2005). However, there have been a number of studies and theories to suggest that neuroticism is positively associated with academic success in highly selected groups (Austin et al. 2002; Leikas et al. 2009). However, this relationship is probably curvilinear since it is unlikely that high levels of anxiety could facilitate performance. Nevertheless, what is apparent is that the more “high stakes” that the test-taking situation is, the stronger that the relationship is between personality and intelligence. This point has been made by Major et al. (2014).

3. Other Traits

Although widely accepted, the Big Five do not encompass all personality traits that have been identified. Over the years, clinical, differential, and social psychologists have identified a large number of traits that could be logically and empirically related to intelligence. These traits include ones such as need for cognition and typical intellectual engagement (Furnham 2020). One recent study examined the relationship between strengths and fluid intelligence and found very little relationship except for the strength of “love of learning” (Kretzschmar et al. 2022).
This research explores two other traits that have been shown to relate to work performance.
The research used different, but validated, measures of both personality and intelligence. The High Potential Type Indicator (HPTI) was designed to assess personality in a work setting nearly 20 years ago. The idea was to assess those traits that had been demonstrated to be related to work performance. Initially, 12 traits were identified, but subsequent psychometric work identified six independent traits, which fulfilled the psychometric demands of a good test (Dissou 2003). A number of papers have used the HPTI (Furnham and Treglown 2018, 2021a, 2021b; Furnham and Impellizzeri 2021; Treglown and Furnham 2020, 2022). The psychometric properties of the measure have been reported (MacRae and Furnham 2020; Teodorescu et al. 2017). There is evidence of the construct, concurrent, and predictive validity of the measure, which has been used frequently in studies of businesspeople (Cuppello et al. 2023a, 2023b).
Four of the six HPTI scales are similar to components of the Big Five—conscientiousness, adjustment (low neuroticism), curiosity (openness), and competitiveness (low agreeableness). However, the HPTI does have two scales that measure concepts that have been part of the personality and individual difference literature for many years. Martinsen (2023) showed the concurrent validity of four dimensions when correlating HPTI and NEO-PI-R test scores in 1196 military people (correlation between adjustment and neuroticism were r = .62, that between curiosity and openness was r = .57, and that of both conscientiousness measures was r = .58.
The first, ambiguity acceptance (or tolerance of ambiguity; ToA) assesses how an individual or group processes and perceives unfamiliarity or incongruence. Those who are tolerant of ambiguity perform well in new or uncertain situations, adapt when duties or objectives are unclear, and are able to learn and function in unpredictable times or environments. The highly diverse literature has been reviewed by Furnham (2017a, 2017b) and Furnham and Marks (2013). Because studies have shown ToA to be correlated with openness (Caligiuri et al. 2000), as well as success in educational and work environments (Caulfield et al. 2014; Katsaros et al. 2014).
The other variable was approach to risk or courage, which is the ability to combat or mitigate negative or threat-based emotions and broaden the potential range of responses. Unchecked fear restricts the potential range of responses and typically leads to behaviours such as avoidance or contrived ignorance, whereas courage is exhibited as the willingness to confront difficult situations and solve problems despite adversity. Courage is thought to be curvilinearly related to success in many work settings, with both high and low scorers being less successful. It is not clear whether courage would be related to intelligence.

References

  1. Ackerman, Phillip L., and Eric D. Heggestad. 1997. Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin 121: 219–45.
  2. Bédard, Marc-André, and Yann Le Corff. 2020. Intelligence and personality: A replication and extension study of the association between intelligence and personality aspects. Journal of Individual Differences 41: 124–32.
  3. Eysenck, Hans J. 1998. Intelligence: A New Look. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.
  4. Cattell, Raymond Bernard. 1971. Abilities: Their Structure, Growth, and Action. Washington, DC: Houghton Mifflin.
  5. Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas, and Adrian Furnham. 2004. A possible model for explaining the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology 95: 249–64.
  6. Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas, and Adrian Furnham. 2006. Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology 10: 251–67.
  7. Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas, and Adrian Furnham. 2008. Personality, intelligence and approaches to learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences 44: 1596–603.
  8. DeYoung, Colin G. 2011. Intelligence and personality. In The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Edited by Robert J. Sternberg and Scott B. Kaufman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 711–37.
  9. DeYoung, Colin G. 2020. Intelligence and personality. In The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, 2nd ed. Edited by Robert J. Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1011–47.
  10. Kretzschmar, André, Marion Spengler, Anna-Lena Schubert, Ricarda Steinmayr, and Matthias Ziegler. 2018. The Relation of Personality and Intelligence—What Can the Brunswik Symmetry Principle Tell Us? Journal of Intelligence 6: 30.
  11. Major, Jason T., Wendy Johnson, and Ian J. Deary. 2014. Linear and Nonlinear Associations Between General Intelligence and Personality in Project TALENT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106: 638–54.
  12. Murray, Aja L., Wendy Johnson, Matt McGue, and William G. Iacono. 2014. How are conscientiousness and cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences 70: 17–22.
  13. Rammstedt, Beatrice, Clemens M. Lechner, and Daniel Danner. 2018. Relationships between personality and cognitive ability: A facet-level analysis. Journal of Intelligence 6: 28.
  14. Reeve, Charlie L., Rustin D. Meyer, and Silvia Bonaccio. 2006. Intelligence–personality associations reconsidered: The importance of distinguishing between general and narrow dimensions of the intelligence. Intelligence 34: 387–402.
  15. Schermer, Julie Aitken, Georg Krammer, Richard D. Goffin, and Michael D. Biderman. 2020. Using the 16PF to Test the Differentiation of Personality by Intelligence Hypothesis. Journal of Intelligence 8: 12.
  16. Zeidner, Moshe, and Gerald Matthews. 2000. Intelligence and personality. In Handbook of Intelligence. Edited by Robert Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 581–610.
  17. Ziegler, Matthias, Erik Danay, Moritz Heene, Jens Asendorpf, and Markus Bühner. 2012. Openness, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Research in Personality 46: 173–83.
  18. Johann, Verena E., and Julia Karbach. 2022. The relations between personality, components of executive functions, and intelligence in children and young adults. Psychological Research 86: 1904–17.
  19. Gow, Alan J., Martha C. Whiteman, Alison Pattie, and Ian J. Deary. 2005. The personality-intelligence interface: Insights from an ageing cohort. Personality and Individual Differences 39: 751–61.
  20. Corazza, Giovanni Emanuele, and Todd Lubart. 2021. Intelligence and Creativity: Mapping Constructs on the Space-Time Continuum. Journal of Intelligence 9: 1.
  21. Lau, Chloe, R. Michael Bagby, Bruce G. Pollock, and Lena Quilty. 2023. Five-Factor Model and DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder Profile Construction: Associations with Cognitive Ability and Clinical Symptoms. Journal of Intelligence 11: 71.
  22. Macke, Lindsey, Flor de León, Tobias Hermansson, and Petri Kajonius. 2022. An Investigation of the Relationship between Personality, Cognitive Ability, and Work Engagement in Intellectually Gifted Individuals. Journal of Intelligence 10: 100.
  23. Anglim, Jeromy, Patrick D. Dunlop, Serena Wee, Sharon Horwood, Joshua K. Wood, and Andrew Marty. 2022. Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 148: 301–36.
  24. Colom, Roberto, Doreen Bensch, Kai T. Horstmann, Caroline Wehner, and Matthias Ziegler. 2019. Special Issue “The Ability–Personality Integration”. Journal of Intelligence 7: 13.
  25. Demetriou, Andreas, George Spanoudis, and Hudson Golino. 2018. gP for What is Common between Developing Intelligence and Personality: Response to the Commentators. Journal of Intelligence 6: 54.
  26. Willoughby, Emily A., Yuri Kim, James J. Lee, and Colin G. DeYoung. 2023. The Construct Validity of Intellect and Openness as Distinct Aspects of Personality through Differential Associations with Reaction Time. Journal of Intelligence 11: 30.
  27. Furnham, Adrian. 2017a. Ambiguity Intolerance. In Oxford Encyclopedia of Health and Risk Message Design and Processing. Edited by Roxanne Parrott. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 99–117.
  28. Furnham, Adrian. 2017b. Personality and Intelligence in a High Ability Sample. Psychology 8: 1355–62.
  29. Furnham, Adrian, and Luke Treglown. 2018. High potential personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences 128: 81–87.
  30. Beauducel, André, Detlev Liepmann, Jörg Felfe, and Wim Nettelnstroth. 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.
  31. Gignac, Gilles E. 2015. Raven’s is not a pure measure of general intelligence: Implications for g factor theory and the brief measurement of g. Intelligence 52: 71–79.
  32. Johnson, Wendy, Jan te Nijenhuis, and Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. 2008. Still just 1 g: Consistent results from five test batteries. Intelligence 36: 81–95.
  33. Lohman, David F., and Joni M. Lakin. 2011. Intelligence and Reasoning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Edited by Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 419–41.
  34. Reeve, Charlie L., and Nikki Blacksmith. 2009. Identifying g: A review of current factor analytic practices in the science of mental abilities. Intelligence 37: 487–94.
  35. Moutafi, Joanna, Adrian Furnham, and Laurence Paltiel. 2004. Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences 37: 1013–22.
  36. Wood, Paul, and Paul Englert. 2009. Intelligence compensation theory: A critical examination of the negative relationship between conscientiousness and fluid and crystallised intelligence. Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology 2: 19–29.
  37. Harris-Watson, Alexandra M., Mei-Chuan Kung, Michael C. Tocci, Anthony S. Boyce, Jeff A. Weekley, Nigel Guenole, and Nathan T. Carter. 2022. The Interaction Between Conscientiousness and General Mental Ability: Support for a Compensatory Interaction in Task Performance. Journal of Business and Psychology 37: 855–71.
  38. von Stumm, Sophie. 2018. Better open than intellectual: The benefits of investment personality traits for learning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44: 562–73.
  39. von Stumm, Sophie, and Phillip L. Ackerman. 2013. Investment and intelligence: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 139: 841–69.
  40. Woods, Stephen A., Daniel P. Hinton, Sophie von Stumm, and James Bellman-Jeffreys. 2019. Personality and intelligence: Examining the associations of investment-related personality traits with general and specific intelligence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 35: 206–16.
  41. Furnham, Adrian. 2005. Self-estimated intelligence, psychometric intelligence and personality. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient 48: 182–92.
  42. Austin, Elizabeth J., Ian J. Deary, Martha C. Whiteman, F. Gerry R. Fowkes, Nancy L. Pedersen, Patrick Rabbitt, Nuala Bent, and Lynn McInnes. 2002. Relationships between ability and personality: Does intelligence contribute positively to personal and social adjustment? Personality and Individual Differences 32: 1391–411.
  43. Leikas, Sointu, Seppo Mäkinen, Jan-Erik Lönnqvist, and Markku Verkasalo. 2009. Cognitive ability×Emotional stability interactions on adjustment. European Journal of Personality 23: 329–42.
  44. Furnham, Adrian. 2020. Typical Intellectual Engagement (TEI). In Encyclopaedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Edited by Virgil Zeigler-Hill and Todd K. Shackelford. Cham: Springer, pp. 3059–62.
  45. Kretzschmar, André, Lisa Wagner, Fabian Gander, Jennifer Hofmann, René T. Proyer, and Willibald Ruch. 2022. Character strengths and fluid intelligence. Journal of Personality 90: 1057–69.
  46. Dissou, G. 2003. The Identification of High Flyer Traits. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of London, London, UK.
  47. Furnham, Adrian, and Luke Treglown. 2021a. Sex differences in personality scores on six scales: Many significant, but mostly small, differences. Current Psychology 42: 3449–59.
  48. Furnham, Adrian, and Luke Treglown. 2021b. The Dark Side of High-Fliers: The Dark Triad, High-Flier Traits, Engagement, and Subjective Success. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 647676.
  49. Furnham, Adrian, and Sylvia Impellizzeri. 2021. The Personality and Motivation of “Quants”: The Maths Geniuses of Wall Street. Journal of Financial Management, Markets and Institutions 9: 2150002.
  50. Treglown, Luke, and Adrian Furnham. 2020. Birds of a feather work together: The role of emotional intelligence and cognitive ability in workplace interaction and advice networks. Personality and Individual Differences 158: 109833.
  51. Treglown, Luke, and Adrian Furnham. 2022. Age, Sex, Education, EQ, IQ and Management Level: A Study from Great Britain. Journal of General Management 48: 320–29.
  52. MacRae, Ian, and Adrian Furnham. 2020. A Psychometric Analysis of the High Potential Trait Inventory (HPTI). Psychology 11: 1125–40.
  53. Teodorescu, Alexandra, Adrian Furnham, and Ian MacRae. 2017. Trait correlates of success at work. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 25: 36–42.
  54. Cuppello, Stephen, Luke Treglown, and Adrian Furnham. 2023a. Are they sharper at the top? Intelligence, Personality and Management level. Acta Psychologia.
  55. Cuppello, Stephen, Luke Treglown, and Adrian Furnham. 2023b. Personality and Management Level: Traits that get you to the top. Personality and Individual Difference 206: 112108.
  56. Martinsen, O. 2023. Personality Traits as Predictors of Selection, Deselection, and Rejection of Leadership Roles in the Armed Forces. Unpublished paper.
  57. Furnham, Adrian, and Joseph Marks. 2013. Tolerance of Ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology 4: 717–28.
  58. Caligiuri, Paula M., Rick R. Jacobs, and James L. Farr. 2000. The Attitudinal and Behavioral Openness Scale: Scale development and construct validation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24: 27–46.
  59. Caulfield, Marie, Kathryn Andolsek, Douglas Grbic, and Lindsay Roskovensky. 2014. Ambiguity tolerance of students matriculating to US medical schools. Academic Medicine 89: 1526–32.
  60. Katsaros, Kleanthis K., Athanasios N. Tsirikas, and Christos S. Nicolaidis. 2014. Managers’ workplace attitudes, tolerance of ambiguity and firm performance: The case of Greek banking industry. Management Research Review 37: 442–65.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Others
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Stephen Cuppello
,
Luke Treglown
,
Adrian Furnham
View Times: 184
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 01 Jun 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback