The first section of this review has examined the literature on the relationship between personality and psychometric or measured intelligence. Several researchers have recently argued that this relationship is of fundamental importance within the study
of individual differences, for both constructs (personality and intelligence) account for most of the psychological variability between individuals (Austin et al, 2002; Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Hofstee, 2001). However empirical evidence is far from established; on the contrary the literature often refers to conflicting findings and there appears to be more disagreement than agreement on the dimension (size), direction (positive or negative) and nature (underlying processes) of the relationship between personality and psychometric intelligence.
Meta-analytical studies, which represent the most robust psychometric attempt to identify empirical links between latent constructs, have clarified many inconsistencies by providing sound correlational evidence for the relationship between the Big Five
(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness) and the two main dimensions of psychometric intelligence, namely G f and Gc (see Akerman & Heggestad, 1997). Results indicated that Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness to Experience are significantly related to psychometric intelligence. However correlations were not large enough to establish a consensus and, even when researchers have referred to the same data, their conclusions have been different enough to either support (Zeidner, 1995, 1998; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000) or reject (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Austin et al, 2002) the idea that personality and intelligence are essentially unrelated constructs.
Part of the disagreement may be overcome by looking specifically at each personality factor and the different variables that may mediate or moderate its relationship to psychometric intelligence.
Studies on Neuroticism (trait anxiety) have suggested that this personality dimension is mainly related to performance impairment (particularly under stressful conditions)(Sarason, 1980; Zeidner, 1995, 1998). Hence the modest correlations between psychometric intelligence and trait anxiety inventories may be understood as a product of psychometrics, since intelligence is measured through performance, and usually under arousing conditions. However it has been also pointed out that the feelings of negative self-concept associated with neurotic personalities may eventually impair intellectual
competence and not just test-performance (Muller, 1992). In that sense it may be
important to examine how subjective beliefs or estimations of ability may relate to both Neuroticism and psychometric intelligence.
Studies on Extraversion suggest that its relationship to psychometric intelligence may depend on the type o f ability measured (verbal, numerical, spatial) as well as more specific characteristics of the tests (e.g., timed/un-timed, length, written/oral)(see Eysenck, 1994a; Rawlings & Camie, 1989; Revelle, Amaral & Turiff, 1976). However several studies have yielded conflicting findings, suggesting that the generality of the results on Extraversion and ability measures may be problematic (see Rawlings & Skok, 1993; Fumham, Forde & Cotter, 1998a). Perhaps it is necessary to examine other indicators of intellectual competence such as AP in order to understand whether Extraversion may merely affect test-taking styles, or also play a significant role in the development of skills and knowledge.
The third correlate of psychometric intelligence, namely Openness to Experience, has been a central topic of most of the theoretical debate about the personality- intelligence interface. Although Openness appears to be more related to psychometric
intelligence than Extra version and Neuroticism (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997), its status within the realm of individual differences is not clear. Moderate correlations between Openness and psychometric intelligence, particularly Gc (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Austin et al, 2002; Jackson, 1984a), have leaded some researchers to interpret this factor as a dimension of intelligence rather than personality (see Brand, 1994). Others have however preferred to regard Openness as part of personality, mainly because it is assessed by self-report inventories rather than maximal performance tests (see Cronbach,
1949; Hofstee, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1997a). In that sense Openness could be
expected to relate to typical rather than maximal intelligence, as it has in fact been proposed by Ackerman (Ackerman & Goff, 1994; Goff & Ackerman, 1992). In that case. Openness appears to be influential for the actual development of intellectual competence, rather than merely affect ability test performance (like Neuroticism and Extraversion). However psychometric evidence on the relationship between Openness and intelligence is far from conclusive; research should explore not only the links between Openness and psychometric intelligence, but also AP and subjective indicators of intelligence (such as self-estimates of abilities).
The relationship between psychometric intelligence and the Big Five traits Agreeableness and Conscientiousness remains an even more important research question, as these personality dimensions have not been as thoroughly examined as Openness,
Neuroticism, and Extraversion. Although some meta-analytical and reviews have
suggested that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are virtually unrelated to intellectual ability, recent papers (notably Moutafi, Fumham & Crump, 2003; Moutafi, Fumham & Patiel, 2003) may question this. Thus further research is needed to shed light on the
relationship between intellectual competence, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness; particularly their relationship to subjectively-assessed intelligence and AP appears to be a fertile and promising research field, since both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness may be related to self-concept of intelligence (SAI) as well as course work (AP).
The second section of this review was concerned with the relationship between
personality and AP, rather than psychometric intelligence. Further, personality was
conceived not only in terms of the Big Five, but also the Gigantic Three (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1985). Previous research on the relationship between AP and the main
Eysenckian personality dimensions seems to suggest that (to a greater or smaller extent) Neuroticism, Extraversion and Psychoticism are all negatively associated with academic success (Anthony, 1973; Entwistle & Entwistle, 1970; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Goh & Moore, 1987). Evidence based on more recent research has indicated that the Big Five traits Openness and Conscientiousness may be also significantly (but positively) related to AP (see De Raad, 1996; De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996; Busato et al, 2000). It is likely that several personality traits (notably Neuroticism and Conscientiousness) may have a significant impact in the processes underlying AP, and may thus partly determine the results of school/college examinations.
It appears that the main aspects through which personality traits may be beneficial in educational settings are motivation and the ability to become absorbed in tasks (Dobson, 2000; Sarason, Sarason & Pierce, 1995). The importance of motivation may be reflected in the correlations between AP and Conscientiousness (positively) on one hand, and AP and Psychoticism (negatively) on the other (see Barrick, M ount & Strauss, 1993; Sackett et al, 1998). Motivation, achievement striving, dutifulness and responsibility are
all positively represented in Conscientiousness and negatively in Psychoticism. It thus seems likely that individual differences in these traits may result in either lazy or hard working students, which would lead to differences in AP.
On the other hand, the negative correlation between Extraversion and AP may reflect introverts’ advantage to concentrate in academic tasks, inside and outside the classroom (e.g., studying at home). Certain aspects of personality, such as the tendency to worry (high Neuroticism) or to be uncooperative (high Psychoticism, low Agreeableness, low Conscientiousness), may impair, rather than facilitate, academic achievement. To the extent that these personality traits are negative predictors of AP, it would be important to distinguish between low intellectual ability (capacity) and low grades (actual performance). In a way, this difference is reflected in the distinction between maximal and typical performance, since intellectual capacity may be manifested on a performance test, but not on a day-to-day basis.
However, a consistent psychometric relationship between personality traits and AP has yet to be demonstrated. Even if the prediction of AP may be improved with measures of typical performance (e.g., personality inventories), individual differences in AP seem to be less central to personality than to ability (Matthews et al, 2000). At this stage, empirical and theoretical reasons may be insufficient to encourage the use of personality inventories in the prediction of AP, but not to discourage further research on personality and AP. If personality traits are more related to AP than to psychometric intelligence (Rindermann et al, 2001), research on AP may reveal important aspects on the relationship between personality and intellectual competence and, further, demonstrate the relevance of personality traits to educational settings.
The third section of this review has discussed the relationship between SAI and a number of constructs such as gender, AP, lay conceptions of intelligence and personality traits. Although the study of SAI has been initially aimed at examining an individual’s accuracy to estimate his/her intellectual competence (Fumham, 2001b), several areas of research have evidenced the importance of SAI itself (rather than merely in relationship to actual IQ scores).
There is a longstanding tradition in social psychology concerned with the study of self-concept or self-evaluation. W ithin this area (usually referred to as social cognition), there are several authors that have been concerned with the real-life correlates of subjective measures such as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986), self-monitoring (Stankov, 1999), or attributional style (Metalsky & Abramson, 1981). The more recent concept of SAI is thus relevant with regard to indicators of performance, not only on academic exam grades, but also on psychometric intelligence tests.
There is relatively recent but consistent evidence that SAI is significantly correlated with psychometric intelligence (Fumham, 2001b; Fumham & Rawles, 1995,
1999). Although this correlation has usually been interpreted in terms of “insight”
(which would imply an effect of actual ability on SAI)(Fumham & Rawles, 1995;
Paulhus et al, 1998), it is equally possible that people’s estimations (SAI) may directly affect performance on IQ tests (Bandura, 1986). Thus SAI may have self-fulfilling effects: feeling “bright” may enhance confidence and improve performance (for instance on exams or psychometric tests), while the opposite feeling may impair it.
Hence intellectual competence should not only be conceptualised in terms of psychometrically measured intelligence or AP, but also considering SAI. Further, it is
likely that SAI is also related to a number of non-cognitive variables such as gender (Fumham, Fong & Martin, 1999), interests (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997), lay theories of intelligence (Fumham, 2001b), and personality (Fumham & Thomas, 2003). Particularly the relationship between SAI and personality traits has yet to be explored and appears an important aspect of the more general area of research that concems the personality and intellectual competence interface.
T ab le 1.7: C onceptual fram ew ork p resenting correlations am on g person ality traits and indicators o f in tellectu al co m p eten ce
P sych om etric in tellig en ce
A ca d em ic perform ance
S u b jectiv ely -a ssessed in tellig en ce
N eu roticism - - —
E xtraversion + /- -
O penness + + + + +
A g reea b len ess (+ ) + -
C o n scien tio u sn ess - + + (+ )
+ = p o sitiv e relation, - = n eg a tiv e relation, + /- variable, ( ) = w eak, + + , - = m oderate
To conclude. Table 1.7 presents a conceptual framework for the prediction of the relationships between personality traits and intellectual competence (psychometric, academic, and subjectively assessed). Each of the cells is ought to be tested in order to obtain a clear understanding of the relationship between personality and intellectual ability. Specific hypotheses will be presented and discussed in the correspondent sections of the following empirical chapters.