MODOS DE ADQUIRIR EL DOMINIO

This chapter has explored the relationship between personality traits, SAI and psychometric intelligence. In addition, other variables such as gender, lay conceptions of intelligence, and estimated personality were also examined with regard to these constmcts. Four studies were reported and several conclusions can be drawn.

Results suggest that, at the psychometric level, personality and intelligence are only weakly (and mostly non-significantly) related. A total of 30 correlations between the NEO- PI-R personality super-traits and several ability measures were computed, only 2 of which were significant. Despite the limitations of these four studies, which involved relatively small (N < 200) and homogeneous (i.e., participants were students from a competitive university and had higher IQ scores than the population mean) samples, consistent links between established personality traits and measured intelligence seem unlikely.

This is certainly tme for Extraversion and Agreeableness, which were virtually

conclusive given the fact that the relationship between psychometric intelligence and this personality trait has been mainly attributed to neurotics’ lower capacity to perform in stressful or arousing conditions. Hence the limitations of the present results, which refer to intelligence tests that were administered under no pressure (in the sense that the results were not used for any sort of decision making or stored for further use): all studies involved opportunity samples composed of university students who completed the tests under no pressure.

W ith regard to the two other traits, namely Openness and Conscientiousness, results are less consistent since these traits were found to be significantly correlated with the Raven Progressive Matrices and Baddeley Reasoning test scores, respectively. Interestingly (and unlike the other three Big Five traits) Openness and Conscientiousness may be theoretically linked to intelligence (rather than merely affect test performance, as has been argued with Neuroticism and Extraversion). These theoretical links appear of great interest for those who attempt to develop a more integrative model to conceptualise non-cognitive and cognitive individual differences (e.g., Ackerman, 1999; Matthews et al, 2000). Specifically, it is the idea that low intellectual ability (Gf) may partly determine the development of a highly conscientious personality, while high Gf may partly determine the development of an open personality.

Nevertheless more evidence in support of these hypotheses is needed. Rather than encouraging the integration of personality and intelligence at a psychometric level, overall the results of chapter 1 seem to indicate that (at least in well-educated and bright samples such as those from competitive universitites) well-established personality traits and psychometric intelligence are orthogonal constructs.

On the other hand, studies 1 to 4 all indicated that personality traits (notably Neuroticism and Agreeableness) are significantly related to subjectively (as opposed to psychometrically) assessed intelligence (SAI). In 9/20 correlations computed across chapter 1 there were significant associations between personality and SAL Although previous research had rarely examined the relationship between SAI and personality traits, the present results show a relatively consistent pattern for SAI to be associated with low Neuroticism

and Agreeableness, and reliably high Extraversion and Openness. In addition, and

confirming past research (Fumham, 2001b; Fumham & Rawles, 1995, 1999), SAI was systematically linked to psychometric intelligence. Given that personality traits predict SAI (but not to psychometric intelligence), and SAI predict psychometric intelligence, SAI may be a regarded as a bridging the link between personality and intelligence.

Thus personality may influence SAI, which in tum can influence performance on ability tests. Further, results showed that SAI is also significantly related to gender (in 75% of the regressions gender was a significant predictor of estimated intelligence). SAI may therefore further explain the relationship between gender and psychometric intelligence: men tend to give higher SAI, and people with higher SAI tend to score higher on

psychometric intelligence tests. Moreover, study 2 also suggested that individual

differences in SAI can be also understood in terms of lay conceptions of intelligence: specifically whether individuals hold positive or negative attitudes towards IQ testing. Although lay conceptions were only assessed in one of the studies of this chapter (and through a very brief inventory), it seems important that research further examines the possible impact of lay conceptions of intelligence on SAI, since the results of this chapter suggest that SAI may have an impact on performance on psychometric tests.

The limitations of the present results also concern the homogeneity of the samples’ SAI, which may be expected to be considerably higher than the normal population: as much as students from selected universities have a higher-than-average intelligence, they are also more likely to regard themselves as more intelligent than the normal population. However, this can only encourage research onto the relationship between SAI, psychometric intelligence and personality traits in a more heterogeneous sample; without the restriction of range of the present samples correlations can be expected to be larger and more significant (Meehl & Rosen, 1955).

Another limitation is perhaps that SAI was assessed in a general way, without looking at lay conceptions of intelligence or estimation of more specific abilities. In that sense, it may be advisable that future studies looking at the relationship between personality, psychometric intelligence and SAI should consider assessing SAI through multiple item inventories/questionnaires. This would provide a more reliable measure of SAI as well as a more specific indicator of the nature and particular lay conceptions of the notions of intelligence underlying SAI. It is however possible that SAI, as assessed in a general way, is a better indicator of participants’ g and, furthermore, would capture more aspects of people’s self-esteem, self-confidence and self-conception.

To conlcude, the present chapter has shown that there are no consistent links between personality and intelligence at the psychometric level. However, when intellectual competence is assessed through SAI, personality traits (notably Neuroticism and Agreeableness, but also Extraversion and Openness to Experience) are indeed significant predictors. Since SAI is consistently related to psychometric intelligence, which suggests that it may play a significant role on ability test performance, SAI may expand the

relationship between personality and psychometric intelligence. Furthermore, it is likely that SAI is also related to both psychometric intelligence and gender. Direct effects of gender on psychometric tests are therefore unlikely, and the same can be said with regard to

the effects of personality traits on IQ test performance. However in order to fully

investigate the relationship between personality traits and intellectual competence (as well as hypothesise and test the direct effects of personality traits), it would be necessary to look not only at psychometric intelligence and SAI, but also at indicators of academic performance. This shall be the topic of the next chapter.

Chapter 3: Personality and Academic Performance