Frecuencias características de los defectos en engranajes

Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) conducted a meta-analysis based upon 135 separate studies into the relationship between intelligence and personality. Ackerman and Heggestad’s findings suggested that intelligence is positively correlated with personality traits falling under the rubric of positive affect. Openness to experience and extroversion are examples of such positive traits. Ackerman and

70 Heggestad’s findings also suggested that intelligence is negatively correlated with traits representing negative affect. Neuroticism is an example of such negative traits. Austin et al.’s (2002) investigation into the relationship between intelligence and personality in four large datasets provided further support for this finding. A variety of other investigations have also suggested a negative relationship between neuroticism and intelligence (Hembree, 1988; Kyllonen, 1997; Seipp, 1991) or ability-related criteria such as academic performance (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003).

Relationships between facets of neuroticism and ability tasks have also been the subject of some investigation. Depression appears to relate to cognitive impairment in functions such as reading comprehension and problem solving (Hartlage, Alloy, Vasquez, & Dykman, 1993). A tendency for increased aggression and delinquency to be associated with low intelligence was also revealed in research on the effects of anger (Zeidner, 1995).

The most extensively researched personality trait in contemporary investigations, and that most strongly correlated with intelligence is openness to experience (Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). Most such research has supported a strong positive relationship between openness to experience and intelligence (Ackerman & Goff, 1994; Costa, Fozard, McCrae, & Bosśe, 1976; Holland, Dollinger, Holland, & MacDonald, 1995; Hough, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1985, etc.). Investigations into the relationship between intelligence and personality that distinguish between Gc and Gf have generally found openness more strongly correlated with Gc than Gf (Bates & Shieles, 2003; Brand, 1994; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Kanfer et al., 1995; Van der Zee, Zaal, & Piekstra, 2003). Goff and Ackerman (1992) found a correlation of r = .40 between Gc and openness. They suggested that this relationship was likely to be a consequence of those high in openness being more motivated to engage in

intellectual activities. Moutafi et al. (2003) suggest that further support for the link between openness and intelligence is derived from studies of authoritarianism. These studies have found

authoritarianism negatively correlated with both openness (r = -.57) (Trapnell, 1994) and intelligence (ranging from r –.20 to –.50) (Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). The relationship between openness and intelligence is consistent with the conceptual similarity of these constructs (Barrick & Mount, 1991;

71 Eysenck, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987). The fact that few or no significant relationships are reported between integrity and these factors is also consistent with the openness-intelligence link.

Studies into the relationship between intelligence and extroversion have been somewhat less consistent. Ackerman and Heggestad’s (1997) meta-analysis suggested a significant, albeit very small, positive correlation between extroversion and intelligence (r = .08). However, other

investigations into this relationship have found significant negative correlations between extroversion and intelligence (Austin et al., 2002; Furnham et al., 1998a). Moutafi et al. (2003) suggest that the contradictory nature of such findings is likely due to the use of tests measuring different aspects of intelligence within these investigations. Zeidner (1995) suggested that extroverts are advantaged in performance tasks (automatic motor sequences) and introverts are advantaged in respect to verbal tasks (associative learning). Moutafi et al.’s (2003) and Zeidner’s (1995) suggestions both re-

emphasise the importance of examining sub-facets of the Big Five and the hierarchical components of intelligence (g, Gf, and Gc).

Agreeableness and conscientiousness are generally the least correlated with intelligence of the Big Five personality factors (Moutafi et al., 2003). Research by Ackerman and Heggestad (1997), and Kyllonen (1997) found near zero correlations between agreeableness and g. These researchers

reported similarly insignificant relationships between conscientiousness and g. However, recent research has reported significant negative correlations between conscientiousness and intelligence (Moutafi et al., 2003, 2004; Wood, 2004; Wood & Englert, 2009). Moutafi et al. (2004) found Big Five conscientiousness to be negatively correlated with Gf (r = -.21, p < .01), but not Gc (r = -.09, p >

.05). They also found Gf and Gc respectively significantly negatively correlated with the 15FQ facets of conscientious (r = -.26, p < .001; r = -.29, p < .001) and disciplined (r = -.16, p < .05; r = -.16, p < .05). Wood (2004) and Wood and Englert (2009) also reported significant negative relationships between intelligence and conscientiousness. They found negative relationships between conscientious facets and Gf and Gc for both the 15FQ (conscientious and disciplined) and OPP (conformity and detail-Conscious) personality measures. However, not all conscientious facets were found to correlate significantly with Gf and Gc for either the 15FQ (tense-driven and restrained) or OPP (phlegmatic).

72 This provides further support for including facet-level traits in any analysis of predictor relationships with personality.

Unlike findings by Moutafi et al. (2004), Wood and Englert (2009) found Gc to correlate more strongly with conscientious facets than Gf across all measures. Wood and Englert explained this disparity on the basis of the fundamental difference between the populations employed in these respective investigations (high-achievers versus average people who have not graduated from university). Findings that the relationships between conscientiousness and intelligence differ across conscientiousness facets and intelligence components again supports the importance of making such fine-grained distinctions when conducting the research necessary to understand the relationships amongst these traits.

As well as such empirical relationships between intelligence and personality test scores, some interesting conceptualisations of the relationships between personality and intelligence have been proffered. In one such example good judgment is proposed to occur as a function of relationships between intelligence and personality (Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Barrett, 2008).

Section 2.5 examines the use of response time information as an indicator of response style and time management. It also briefly examines the response as a parameter of ability and moderating influence on ability scores.