Low Correlations between Intelligence and Big Five Personality Traits: Need to Broaden the Domain of Personality
2. Low Correlation between Intelligence and Big Five Measures
3. Investment Theory and the Role of Openness to Experience
4. Recent Developments in Studies of Individual Differences
4.1. Recent Expansions of the Cognitive Domain and Potential Links to Personality
4.2. Recent Expansions of the Domain of Personality Do Not Change Its Relationship to Cognitive Abilities
4.3. No-Man’s-Land between Personality and Cognitive Abilities
4.3.1. Big Five/Six and Cognitive Ability Are Weak Predictors of Conservative Syndrome and Militant Extremist Mindset (MEM)
4.3.2. Self-Beliefs Are Better Predictors of Cognitive Performance than Big Five Measures of Personality
- Mathematics self-efficacy. Students were asked to rate their confidence in their ability to solve each of seven hypothetical mathematic problems but they were not asked to carry out the necessary calculations. An example item is: “How confident do you feel about … calculating the number of square meters of tile you need to cover a floor”.
- Mathematics self-concept. Five items taken from PISA 2003 were supplemented with three additional items. An example item is: “In my mathematics class, I understand even the most difficult work”.
- Mathematics anxiety. Five items from PISA 2003 were supplemented with 14 additional statements. All items were negatively worded. An example item: “I get very nervous doing mathematics problems”.
- Confidence. Following each mathematics item attempted in the achievement test, students were asked to rate on an 11-point scale (0% to 100%) their confidence that the answer they gave was correct.
4.3.3. Confidence: Personality Trait, Domain-Specific Metacognitive Process, or …?
4.3.4. Revisiting the Investment Theory: Crucial Role of Confidence?
4.3.5. Apart from Math Anxiety, Self-Beliefs Have Low Correlations with the Big Five
5. Need to Broaden the Personality Domain beyond the Big Five Model
6. Summary and Discussion
Conflicts of Interest
- Guilford, J.P.; Zimmerman, W.S. The Guilford-Zimmerman Survey: Manual of Instructions and Interpretations; Sheridan Supply Co.: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
- Eysenck, H. Intelligence assessment: A theoretical and experimental approach. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1967, 37, 81–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eysenck, H.J. The Biological Basis of Personality; Springfield: Thomas, IL, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Cattell, R.B. Personality and Mood by Questionnaire; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Cattell, R.B. Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth, and Action; North-Holland: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- McGrew, K.S. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues; Flanagan, D.P., Genshaft, J.L., Harrison, P.L., Eds.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 136–182. [Google Scholar]
- Cattell, R.B.; Krug, S.E. The number of factors in the 16PF: A review of the evidence with special emphasis on methodological problems. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1986, 46, 509–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.T.; McCrae, R.R. Domains and Facets: Hierarchical Personality Assessment Using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. J. Personal. Assess. 1995, 64, 21–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Knežević, G.; Savić, D.; Kutlesić, V.; Opacić, G. Disintegration: A Reconceptualization of Psychosis Proneness as a Personality Trait Separate from the Big Five. J. Res. Personal. 2017, 70, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, P. Psychometrics and Psychology; Academic Press: London, UK, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Saucier, G.; Kenner, J.; Iurino, K.; Bou-Malham, P.; Chen, Z.; Thalmayer, A.G.; Kemmelmeier, M.; Tov, W.; Boutti, R.; Metaferia, H.; et al. Cross-cultural differences in a global ‘Survey of World Views’. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2015, 46, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thalmayer, A.G.; Saucier, G. The Questionnaire Big Six in 26 Nations: Developing Cross-Culturally Applicable Big Six, Big Five and Big Two Inventories. Eur. J. Personal. 2014, 28, 482–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stankov, L.; Lee, J. Nastiness, Morality and Religiosity in 33 Nations. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 99, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ackerman, P.L. A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence 1996, 22, 227–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Stumm, S.; Ackerman, P.L. Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2013, 139, 841–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ziegler, M.; Cengia, A.; Mussel, P.; Gerstorf, D. Openness as a Buffer Against Cognitive Decline: The Openness-Fluid-Crystallized-Intelligence (OFCI) Model Applied to Late Adulthood. Psychol. Aging 2015, 30, 573–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stankov, L. Noncognitive predictors of intelligence and academic achievement: An important role of confidence. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2013, 55, 727–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poropat, A.E. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychol. Bull. 2009, 135, 322–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Collis, J.M.; Messick, S. Intelligence and Personality: Bridging the Gap in Theory and Measurement; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Stankov, L. Overemphasized ‘g’. J. Intell. 2017, 5, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stankov, L. Mining on the “No Man’s Land” between intelligence and personality. In Learning and Individual Differences: Process, Trait, and Content Determinants; Ackerman, P.L., Kyllonen, P.C., Roberts, R.D., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; pp. 315–338. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, K.; Ferguson, E.; Smillie, L.D. Prosocial Personality Traits Differentially Predict Egalitarianism, Generosity, and Reciprocity in Economic Games. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Almlund, M.; Duckworth, A.L.; Heckman, J.J.; Kautz, T. Personality Psychology and Economics. Discussion Paper Series // Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, No. 5500, (2011). Available online: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-201104113733 (accessed on 25 January 2018).
- Stanovich, K.E. On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: Implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning; Holyoak, K.J., Morrison, R.G., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 343–365. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Linden, D.; te Nijenhuis, J.; Bakker, A.B. The General Factor of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study. J. Res. Personal. 2010, 44, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stankov, L. Depression and life satisfaction among European and Confucian adolescents. Psychol. Assess. 2013, 25, 1220–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muris, P.; Merckelbach, H.; Otgaar, H.H.; Meijer, E. The Malevolent Side of Human Nature: A Meta-Analysis and Critical Review of the Literature on the Dark Triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 12, 183–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stankov, L. Major Psychological Dimensions of Cross-cultural Differences: Nastiness, Social Awareness/Morality, Religiosity and Broad Conservatism/Liberalism. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2016, 49, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuckerman, M.; Silberman, J.; Hall, J.A. The relation between intelligence and religiosity: A meta-analysis and some proposed explanations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2013, 17, 325–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stankov, L. Psychological processes common to social conservatism and terrorism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2018, 120, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medjedović, J.; Knežević, G. Dark and psychotic-like features of militant extremist thinking pattern. Under review.
- Lee, J.; Stankov, L. Non-cognitive Predictors of Mathematics Achievement in the TIMSS and the PISA. Under review.
- Stankov, L.; Morony, S.; Lee, Y.P. Confidence: The best non-cognitive predictor of academic achievement? Educ. Psychol. 2014, 34, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stankov, L.; Lee, J.; Luo, W.; Hogan, D.J. Confidence: A better predictor of academic achievement than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety? Learn. Individ. Differ. 2012, 22, 747–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleitman, S.; Stankov, L. Self-confidence and Metacognitive Processes. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2007, 17, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stankov, L. Complexity, metacognition, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence 2000, 28, 121–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stajkovic, A.D.; Bandura, A.; Locke, E.A.; Lee, D.; Sergent, K. Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2018, 120, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowker, A.; Sarkar, A.; Looi, C.Y. Mathematics Anxiety: What Have We Learned in 60 Years? Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kleitman, S.; Costa, D.S.J. The role of a novel formative assessment tool (Stats-mIQ) and individual differences in real-life academic performance. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2014, 29, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mischel, W. Personality and Assessment; Wiley: London, UK, 1968. [Google Scholar]
- DeYoung, C.G. Openness/Intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences; Cooper, M.L., Larsen, R.J., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Volume 4, pp. 369–399. [Google Scholar]
Our own findings were not included in meta-analyses of the relationship between cognitive abilities and personality.
|Big Six Personality Traits ||Number Series Test|
© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stankov, L. Low Correlations between Intelligence and Big Five Personality Traits: Need to Broaden the Domain of Personality. J. Intell. 2018, 6, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6020026
Stankov L. Low Correlations between Intelligence and Big Five Personality Traits: Need to Broaden the Domain of Personality. Journal of Intelligence. 2018; 6(2):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6020026Chicago/Turabian Style
Stankov, Lazar. 2018. "Low Correlations between Intelligence and Big Five Personality Traits: Need to Broaden the Domain of Personality" Journal of Intelligence 6, no. 2: 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6020026