Original Article Intelligence and Personality A Replication and Extension Study of the Association Between Intelligence and Personality Aspects Marc-André Bédard and Yann Le Corff This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Department of Vocational Guidance, Faculty of Education, University of Sherbrooke, QC, Canada This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Abstract: This replication and extension of DeYoung, Quilty, Peterson, and Gray’s (2014) study aimed to assess the unique variance of each of the 10 aspects of the Big Five personality traits (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007) associated with intelligence and its dimensions. Personality aspects and intelligence were assessed in a sample of French-Canadian adults from real-life assessment settings (n = 213). Results showed that the Intellect aspect was independently associated with g, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence while its counterpart Openness was independently related to verbal intelligence only, thus replicating the results of the original study. Independent associations were also found between Withdrawal, Industriousness and Assertiveness aspects and verbal intelligence, as well as between Withdrawal and Politeness aspects and nonverbal intelligence. Possible explanations for these associations are discussed. Keywords: personality, intelligence, cognitive ability, Big Five, five-factor model Personality and intelligence are psychological constructs 1994; Church & Burke, 1994; Costa, McCrae, & Dye, that have been widely studied over the last century, in large 1991; Depue & Collins, 1999; DeYoung, Peterson, & part due to their ability to explain important aspects of life, Higgins, 2005; Johnson, 1994; Saucier & Goldberg, 2001; such as academic and work performance (Chamorro-Pre- in DeYoung et al., 2007). As such, Openness to experience muzic, & Furnham, 2003; Ziegler, Dietl, Danay, Vogel, & encompasses the Openness and Intellect aspects; Conscien- Bühner, 2011). Traditionally, both constructs have been tiousness encompasses the Industriousness and Orderli- considered as either indirectly related or not at all related ness aspects; Extraversion encompasses the Assertiveness (Eysenck, 1994). However, a few researchers have recently and Enthusiasm aspects; Agreeableness encompasses the suggested that intelligence, through its influence on peo- Compassion and Politeness aspects; and Emotional ple’s thoughts and behaviors, could be integrated within Stability encompasses the Volatility and Withdrawal aspects broader models of personality (DeYoung, 2011). As a result, (DeYoung et al., 2007). there has been much debate and little consensus about the The identification of these 10 aspects was the basis for nature of the association between personality and DeYoung, Quilty, Peterson, and Gray (2014) study on the intelligence. association between personality traits and intelligence. Today, the default model of the structure of personality DeYoung has recently suggested a theoretical framework traits is the Big Five taxonomy, as it is currently the most integrating intelligence within personality (DeYoung, 2011, empirically validated (Mervielde, De Clercq, De Fruyt, & 2014; DeYoung, Grazioplene, & Peterson, 2012) as an alter- Van Leeuwen, 2005; Saucier, & Goldberg, 2001). Recently, native way to explain the relationship between both con- each of the Big Five domains has been theorized to include structs. DeYoung et al.’s (2014) study objective was to two distinct (though correlated) factors, or aspects clarify the empirical relationship between personality and (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). Indeed, a behavior intelligence, with the premise that the Intellect aspect of genetic study using large samples found that two genetic the Openness to Experience dimension would encompass factors are responsible for the shared variance of the six intelligence because it includes descriptors of intelligence facets scales that make up each of the Big Five dimensions such as perceived intelligence and intellectual engagement in the NEO-PI-R (Jang, Livesley, Angleitner, Reimann, & (DeYoung, 2011). It was thus hypothesized that only aspects Vernon, 2002). This finding is supported by several studies from the Openness to Experience domain should be empir- that reported NEO-PI facets of each dimension splitting off ically associated with intelligence, with the Intellect aspect into two groups of factors (Ashton & Lee, 2005; Church, being more strongly associated with intelligence than its Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41(3), 124–132 Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000311 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality 125 counterpart aspect, Openness. Subsequently, DeYoung associations between intelligence and the aspects of the et al. (2014) sought to confirm this hypothesis by analyzing other four Big Five dimensions. the relationships between the 10 aspects of the Big Five and verbal and nonverbal intelligence facets. In two distinct samples, only Openness to Experience and its Intellect aspect were consistently correlated with all three intelli- Method gence scores (g, verbal, and nonverbal), while its Openness aspect, as well as Agreeableness dimension and its Com- Participants and Procedure passion aspect, were consistently correlated with g and ver- bal intelligence, but not with nonverbal intelligence. The sample included 66 men and 147 women (N = 213), Neuroticism and its two aspects were correlated with non- aged between 18 and 64 (M = 30.59, SD = 8.82). It con- verbal intelligence only and in only one sample. As such, it sisted of respondents from the database of the Canadian editor (the Institute of Psychological Research) who com- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. is possible that Intellect is responsible for the association This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. between Openness to Experience and nonverbal intelli- pleted the online French-Canadian versions of the Le Corff gence, and that the association between Compassion and Personality Inventory (LCPI) (Le Corff, 2014) and of the verbal intelligence is responsible for the association g-test (Institute of Psychological Research, 2014) in real-life between Agreeableness, g, and verbal intelligence. assessment settings, such as personnel selection, organiza- A unique and innovative contribution of DeYoung et al. tional psychology, vocational counseling, and coaching. (2014) was the study of the unique variance of both Respondents were chosen from the database on the condi- Openness and Intellect aspects in relation to intelligence tion of having completed both instruments. Given the and its facets. The authors sought to test the possibility that various evaluation settings, not all participants completed Openness, which does not conceptually encompass intelli- the tests at the same time, although a majority (n = 192) gence, might not be associated with intelligence after completed both tests within the same week, with most controlling for its shared variance with Intellect. Sequential (n = 137) completing both on the same day. regressions indicated that only Intellect incrementally predicted g and nonverbal intelligence, while both Intellect Measures and Openness contributed incrementally to the prediction of verbal intelligence. Personality The present study sought to replicate these findings Dimensions and aspects of the Big Five were measured because of their relevance in the study of the association with the LCPI (Le Corff, 2014). This 104-item, non-timed between intelligence and personality. This study also aimed questionnaire measures the Big Five personality dimen- to extend the original study’s methodology by computing sions1 as well as 10 underlying aspects, two per dimension, the independent associations between aspects from all five which are conceptually based on DeYoung’s 10 aspects of personality traits, as opposed to only Openness to Experi- the Big Five (DeYoung et al., 2007). Each dimension score ence, and intelligence (g, verbal, nonverbal). This extension is obtained by the sum of scores of its two aspect scales. is of interest because the other four domains of the Big Five Respondents rate the extent to which each item of the LCPI have been found to correlate with intelligence in recent accurately describes them using a 5-point Likert-type scale. studies: Conscientiousness (Rikoon et al., 2016), Extraver- Of the 104 items, 42 (40.4%) are reverse scored to control sion (Wolf & Ackerman, 2005), Agreeableness (Schretlen, for acquiescence and nay-saying. Each of the ten aspect van der Hulst, Pearlson, & Gordon, 2010), and Emotional scales includes between 8 and 12 items. Stability (Rammstedt, Danner, & Martin, 2016). However, Cronbach alphas (α) for the LCPI ranged as follows: .71 past findings regarding such associations have often been (Openness to Experience; 21 items), .77 (Agreeableness; contradictory (see Furnham, Moutafi, & Chamorro-Pre- 19 items), .83 (Conscientiousness; 20 items), .87 (Extraver- muzic, 2005; Schretlen et al., 2010). Studying the unique sion; 22 items), and .86 (Emotional Stability; 22 items). variance shared between the 10 aspects of the Big Five Test–retest reliability over a 1- to 3-week interval ranged and intelligence could help explain previous contradictory from .74 (Agreeableness) to .89 (Conscientiousness). Con- findings. vergent correlations between the LCPI and the NEO-PI-3 Therefore, the current study aimed to replicate DeYoung (French-Canadian version) were high for Neuroticism/ et al.’s (2014) findings concerning the relation between Emotional stability (r = .88), Extraversion (r = .80), Open- intelligence and the two aspects of Openness to Experience ness to Experience (r = .79), and Conscientiousness (r = and to extend the original study’s findings by exploring the .83), but was lower for Agreeableness (r = .62), due to 1 The Neuroticism dimension is named Emotional Stability and its score is inverted so that a higher score indicates a better adjustment. Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41(3), 124–132 126 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality conceptual differences; most notably, the LCPI Agree- reasoning, Logic, Spatial, and Perception subscales. In the ableness dimension does not assess Straightforwardness current sample, Cronbach α for both these scales were .75. (Le Corff, 2014; McCrae & Costa, 2016). Cronbach α for The g-test results showed high convergent validity with the 10 LCPI aspects ranged as follows: .57 (Politeness; 8 the French versions of the General Aptitude Test Battery items), .58 (Openness; 9 items), .69 (Compassion; 11 items), (Chevrier, 1987) (r = .77 with the g factor only) and the .70 (Orderliness; 8 items), .71 (Intellect; 12 items), .74 Wonderlic (2007) (r = .84). (Withdrawal; 11 items), .76 (Industriousness; 12 items), .79 (Enthusiasm; 11 items), .80 (Assertiveness; 11 items), and .83 (Volatility; 11 items). Test–retest reliability over a 1- to 3-week interval ranged from .63 (Compassion) to .87 Results (Volatility, Industriousness and Orderliness). Correlations between the three intelligence variables and This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Intelligence Big Five dimensions and aspects are shown in Table 1. As This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Intelligence was assessed with the French-Canadian expected, among all five dimensions, Openness to Experi- version of the g-test (Institute of Psychological Research, ence showed the greatest correlation with g, verbal, and 2014). It includes 50 multiple choice items, and participants nonverbal intelligence. Statistically significant correlations have 12 min to provide as many correct answers as were also found between the three intelligence variables possible. The g-test measures the g factor of intelligence and the four other Big Five dimensions (varying from .18 (Carroll, 1993; Horn, 1968, 1994) using eight subscales: to .43) and their aspects (varying from .16 to .39). In Antonym–Synonym (7 items), Word association (9 items), general, correlations tended to be higher for verbal Understanding (6 items), Numbers series and sequences (Mdn r = .26) than nonverbal intelligence (Mdnr = .21), (3 items), Mathematical reasoning (15 items), Logic although Fisher’s r to z transformation indicated that the (6 items), Spatial (2 items), and Perception (2 items). differences between correlations were not statistically Cronbach α of these subscales vary from .74 to .91, significant. It is important to note that correlations between although they have not been measured for the three sub- Big Five dimensions (and consequently, between their scales with three items or less. The overall Cronbach α is aspects) were high, varying between .38 (Agreeableness .82 (Institute of Psychological Research, 2014). with Extraversion) and .62 (Agreeableness with Emotional It is possible to obtain verbal and nonverbal intelligence Stability), with a Mdn of .50. scores by splitting the g-test’s eight subtests into two parts. Sequential multiple regressions were performed to assess The verbal intelligence scale includes the 22 items from the the independent association of each aspect of the Big Five Antonym–Synonym, Word association, and Understanding dimensions with g, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence. Two subscales. The nonverbal scale includes the 28 items sequential regression analyses were conducted for each from the Numbers series and sequences, Mathematical dependent variable (g, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence). Table 1. Correlations among measures of intelligence and the dimensions and aspects of the Big Five g Verbal Nonverbal ES E A C O Emotional stability .26** .24** .24** – Volatility .20** .18** .18** Withdrawal .28** .26** .25** Extraversion .23** .24** .18** .52** – Assertiveness .23** .26** .16* Enthusiasm .19** .18** .17* Agreeableness .29** .27** .25** .62** .38** – Compassion .23** .25** .18** Politeness .31** .26** .30** Conscientiousness .26** .27** .21** .63** .47** .60** – Industriousness .26** .27** .21** Orderliness .22** .23** .18** Openness to experience .39** .43** .28** .45** .58** .44** .45** – Intellect .36** .39** .27** Openness .31** .36** .21** Notes. N = 213. *p < .05. **p < .01. ES = Emotional Stability; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; O = Openness to Experience. Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41(3), 124–132 Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality 127 Table 2. Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of Table 3. Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of Openness to Experience Conscientiousness Criterion Predictors β t R2 ΔR2 Criterion Predictors β t R2 ΔR2 g Openness .310 4.730** .096** – g Industriousness .262 3.947** .069** – Intellect .273 3.724** .152** .056** Orderliness .069 0.724 .071 .002 Verbal Openness .363 5.654** .132** – Verbal Industriousness .268 4.044** .072** – Intellect .273 3.803** .188** .056** Orderliness .069 0.725 .074 .002 Nonverbal Openness .207 3.072** .043** – Nonverbal Industriousness .212 3.149** .045** – Intellect .227 2.970** .081** .039** Orderliness .057 0.593 .046 .002 g Openness .360 5.601** .129** – g Orderliness .222 3.303** .049** – Intellect .173 2.357* .152* .022* Industriousness .213 2.225* .071* .022* Verbal Openness .386 6.082** .149** – Verbal Orderliness .226 3.370** .051** – Intellect .226 3.149** .188** .038** Industriousness .219 2.292* .074* .023* This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Nonverbal Openness .274 4.132** .075** – Nonverbal Orderliness .180 2.657** .032** – This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Intellect .093 1.224 .081 .007 Industriousness .171 1.763 .046 .014 Notes. N = 213. ΔR2 = incremental R2 for each predictor when entered after Notes. N = 213. ΔR2 = incremental R2 for each predictor when entered after the other predictor. *p < .05. **p < .01. the other predictor. *p < .05. **p < .01. In the first regression, one aspect of a given dimension (e.g., Table 4. Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of Intellect) was entered in the first step, and the other aspect Extraversion (e.g., Openness) was entered in the second step. In the sec- Criterion Predictor β t R2 ΔR2 ond regression, the order in which the aspects were entered g Assertiveness .227 3.385** .051** – was reversed. Furthermore, to assess the potential con- Enthusiasm .059 0.601 .053 .002 founding effects of participants’ sex and age, these Verbal Assertiveness .258 3.875** .066** – variables were entered as covariates in the regression Enthusiasm .012 0.120 .067 .000 analyses, before entering the other independent variables Nonverbal Assertiveness .159 2.343* .025* – (personality aspects). Results showed that neither age nor Enthusiasm .116 1.162 .032 .006 sex was significantly associated with g, verbal, and nonver- g Enthusiasm .194 2.874** .038** – Assertiveness .183 1.852 .053 .015 bal intelligence (all ps > .05 and R2 < .01). Consequently, Verbal Enthusiasm .184 2.718** .034** – these covariates were not included in the regression models Assertiveness .266 2.712** .067** .033** presented below. Nonverbal Enthusiasm .171 2.514* .029* – Regression results for the two aspects of Openness to Assertiveness .074 0.738 .032 .003 Experience are presented in Table 2. Both Intellect and Notes. N = 213. ΔR2 = incremental R2 for each predictor when entered after Openness were associated with all three intelligence the other predictor. *p < .05. **p < .01. variables. Intellect shared significant unique variance with g, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence, after controlling for Openness. Openness was incrementally associated with controlling for Compassion, whereas the latter was not verbal intelligence and, to a lesser extent, g, but not with associated with intelligence after controlling for Politeness. nonverbal intelligence, after controlling for Intellect. Lastly, as shown in Table 6, in the Emotional Stability As shown in Table 3, within the Conscientiousness dimension, both Withdrawal and Volatility were associated domain, both Industriousness and Orderliness were associ- with the intelligence variables. Withdrawal shared unique ated with all three intelligence variables. However, Industri- variance with g, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence, after ousness shared unique variance with g and verbal intelligence controlling for Volatility. The association between Volatility only, and Orderliness was not associated with any intelli- and the three intelligence variables, however, became non- gence variable after controlling for Industriousness. significant after controlling for Withdrawal. Extraversion displayed similar results (see Table 4), with both aspects showing a significant association with all three intelligence variables, and only Assertiveness sharing significant unique variance with verbal intelligence after Discussion controlling for Enthusiasm. Table 5 presents regression results for the two aspects of The first objective of this study was to replicate DeYoung Agreeableness, which were significantly associated with the et al.’s (2014) findings concerning the relation between three intelligence variables. Politeness shared significant Openness to Experience and intelligence. Overall, our unique variance with g and nonverbal intelligence after results are consistent with the replicated study. As expected, Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41(3), 124–132 128 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality Table 5. Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of and the current study tend toward confirming a significant Agreeableness association between Intellect and verbal and nonverbal Criterion Predictor β t R2 ΔR2 intelligence, even after controlling for its shared variance g Compassion .233 3.487** .054** with Openness. It is worth noting that in the present study, Politeness .282 3.047** .095** .040** the variance of nonverbal intelligence explained by the Verbal Compassion .245 3.675** .060** unique variance of Intellect was much less than in DeYoung Politeness .171 1.829 .075 .015 et al.’s (2014) two samples (ΔR2 = .04 vs. .21 and .22). Nonverbal Compassion .182 2.696** .033** Meanwhile, as was the case in the replicated study, after Politeness .338 3.646** .091** .058** controlling for Intellect, the Openness aspect was associ- g Politeness .306 4.676** .094** Compassion .035 0.381 .095 .001 ated with verbal intelligence, but not with nonverbal intelli- Verbal Politeness .259 3.892** .067** gence. As discussed by DeYoung et al. (2014), it is possible Compassion .125 1.338 .075 .008 that implicit learning, the ability to learn patterns uncon- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Nonverbal Politeness .299 4.549** .089** sciously, plays a key role in this association, as it is associ- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Compassion .055 0.595 .091 .002 ated with Openness (but not Intellect) and with verbal Notes. N = 213. ΔR2 = incremental R2 for each predictor when entered after intelligence (but not with nonverbal intelligence). There- the other predictor. *p < .05. **p < .01. fore, individuals high in Openness could have greater verbal skills in part because of their capacity for implicit Table 6. Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of learning of the patterns of language (DeYoung et al., Emotional Stability 2014). Moreover, it is important to note that approximately Criterion Predictor β t R2 ΔR2 half the shared variance between verbal intelligence and g Volatility .200 2.971** .040** Openness to Experience was related to the shared variance Withdrawal .254 3.036** .080** .040** between Intellect and Openness and the other half was Verbal Volatility .183 2.696** .033** related to each aspect’s unique variance. These two aspects Withdrawal .243 2.895** .070** .038** share many descriptors that may be associated with a Nonverbal Volatility .183 2.703** .033** higher interest in exploring the richness and possibilities Withdrawal .220 2.611* .064* .030* of language (e.g., innovative and curious), thus promoting g Withdrawal .281 4.260** .079** the development of verbal intelligence. It is also possible Volatility .045 0.542 .080 .001 that different mechanisms contribute to the association of Verbal Withdrawal .264 3.976** .070** Volatility .034 0.402 .070 .001 each aspect with verbal intelligence. While the intellectual Nonverbal Withdrawal .250 3.748** .062** curiosity and interest in complexity associated with high Volatility .048 0.574 .064 .001 Intellect may be a fertile ground for the development of Notes. N = 213. ΔR = incremental R for each predictor when entered after 2 2 verbal intelligence, the same process may occur with high the other predictor. *p < .05. **p < .01. Openness through an interest in the esthetics and artistic aspects of language. This is coherent with Ackerman’s Pro- cess, Personality, Interests, and Knowledge Theory (PPIK; Openness to Experience is the Big Five dimension that Ackerman, 1996), which was itself based on Cattell’s invest- showed the strongest correlation with intelligence. This ment theory (Cattell, 1957). The PPIK Theory states that correlation was slightly higher in our sample (r = .39) than one’s research and accumulation of knowledge is precursor in DeYoung et al.’s samples (r = .37 and .31). Also, as in the to the development of crystallized intelligence, whereas the replicated study, Openness to Experience was more strongly development of fluid intelligence rests on other factors associated with verbal than with nonverbal intelligence. which are conceptualized as processes such as reasoning, Again, these two correlations were slightly higher in the pre- working memory, perceptual speed, and spatial rotation. sent study (r = .43 for verbal and .28 for nonverbal intelli- The second objective of this study was to extend the gence) than those reported by DeYoung et al. (2014; r = original study’s findings by exploring the associations .40 and .35 for verbal, .18 and .16 for nonverbal intelligence). between intelligence and the aspects of the other four DeYoung hypothesized that Intellect’s unique variance Big Five dimensions. Aside from Openness to Experience, within Openness to Experience would explain the shared DeYoung et al. (2014) reported significant correlations variance between this dimension and verbal and nonverbal between intelligence and Neuroticism and Agreeableness. intelligence because it includes descriptors of intelligence In contrast, the present study found that all Big Five and intellectual engagement. Consequently, it was expected dimensions and their aspects were significantly correlated that the association between intelligence and the unique with g as well as with verbal and nonverbal intelligence. variance of the Openness aspect would be much less sub- One possible explanation comes from the fact that correla- stantial. Hierarchical regressions in both the original study tions between personality scales in our sample were high Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41(3), 124–132 Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality 129 (Mdnr = .50), and significantly higher than previously Unexpectedly, the Politeness aspect of the Agreeableness reported for the LCPI in a sample of university students dimension was associated with nonverbal intelligence after (Mdnr = .23; Le Corff, Gingras, & Busque-Carrier, 2017). controlling for the Compassion aspect, while the reverse High stakes assessment settings such as personnel selection was not true. DeYoung et al. (2014) had originally found are known to produce more desirable personality profiles, Compassion to be more strongly correlated with intelli- that is, higher scores on Openness to Experience, Conscien- gence than Politeness. This disparity could be explained tiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional by methodological differences between studies. DeYoung Stability (Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick, & Smith, et al. (2007) defined Politeness as “a reasoned, or at least 2006). Since studies (Geiger, Olderbak, Sauter, & Wilhelm, cognitively influenced, consideration of and respect for 2018; MacCann, 2013; Tett, Freund, Christiansen, Fox, & others’ needs and desires, e.g., cooperation, compliance, Coaster, 2012) have shown intelligence to be associated and straightforwardness.” While cooperation and compli- with greater personality scores inflation (faking good), it is ance are encompassed by the LCPI (Le Corff, 2014) This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. possible that the presence of respondents in our sample Politeness scale, people with high Politeness as also defined This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. who were assessed in high stakes settings (most notably as “preferring to act as to maintain social cohesion and personnel selection) has artificially increased the associa- avoid conflicts and confrontations.” More precisely, 4 of tions between personality traits and intelligence. Nonethe- the 8 items from the LCPI Politeness scale measure con- less, our results are consistent with several previous flict-seeking/avoidance in some fashion, while only 3 of studies that reported correlations between intelligence 10 do so in DeYoung et al.’s Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS; and Extraversion and Conscientiousness (Rikoon et al., 2007). It is thus possible that the LCPI Politeness scale is 2016; Wolf & Ackerman, 2005); however, many other more strongly related to aggression than its BFAS counter- previously conducted studies reported contradictory find- part. As DeYoung et al. (2014) noted, measures of aggres- ings. As stated previously, it is possible that studying each sion (the tendency to actively seek conflict) are known to aspect’s unique variance with intelligence could help refine be negatively correlated with intelligence (Ackerman & our comprehension of this matter. Heggestad, 1997), particularly nonverbal intelligence Within Conscientiousness, the Industriousness aspect (Verlinden et al., 2014). It is possible that the association was found to incrementally predict verbal intelligence only, between intelligence and the LCPI’s Politeness scale, in after controlling for Orderliness, while the opposite did not which half the items measure the avoidance of conflicts, occur. Previous research reported both negative and posi- reflects this observation. tive correlations between Conscientiousness and intelli- Lastly, within Emotional Stability (reversed Neuroticism), gence (Moutafi, Furnham, & Paltiel, 2005; Rikoon et al., the Withdrawal aspect shared unique variance with both 2016). These results could reflect the possibility that indus- verbal and nonverbal intelligence, while the Volatility trious people, who are more likely to work hard during their aspect did not. Traditionally, the well-documented weak education, could develop their verbal intelligence more effi- negative association between Neuroticism and intelligence ciently than their nonverbal intelligence, given that experi- has been attributed to test anxiety (Ackerman & Heggestad, ence and learning contributes more to verbal intelligence 1997). Given that the anxiety trait is located in the With- than it does to nonverbal intelligence. drawal aspect, our results appear to support the hypothesis In a similar fashion, the Assertiveness aspect of Extraver- that anxious individuals are more likely to perform poorly sion shared unique variance with verbal intelligence, which on intelligence tests. was not the case for Enthusiasm. These results are consis- The results of the current study must be interpreted in tent with Wolf and Ackerman (2005)’s meta-analysis, in the light of its methodological limitations. First, sample size which effect sizes were larger between intelligence and was limited (n = 213), albeit similar to those of the repli- social potency (conceptually similar to Assertiveness) than cated study (125 undergraduates and 191 white men). between intelligence and social closeness (which overlaps Second, intelligence was assessed with a brief, 12-minute with Enthusiasm). Wolf and Ackerman (2005) also found measure. Even if its correlation with the Wonderlic is more that the Extraversion dimension was more strongly associ- than acceptable (r = .84), it is not as exhaustive as a com- ated with intelligence than either social potency or social plete test battery, such as the WAIS-IV. Third, the Polite- closeness. It was also the case in the present study: ness and Openness aspect scales of the LCPI had internal Assertiveness and Enthusiasm together explained 5.3% of consistency coefficients below .60. This lower reliability the variance of g, while neither explained a significant part may have led to an underestimation of the strength of the of unique variance after controlling for its share variance associations involving these scales, due to the possible with the other aspect. Thus, the shared variance between higher proportion of measurement error (although lower Assertiveness and Enthusiasm appears to be the main cause internal consistency can also indicate that a scale measures of their association with intelligence. a broad or complex construct). Fourth, personality and Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41(3), 124–132 130 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality intelligence were not assessed at the same time in all cases, personality traits using indicators of maximal performance with delays longer than a week in 10% of cases; this instead of indicators of typical behavior. As DeYoung may have diminished the magnitude of the correlations (2011) argues, many personality traits involve abilities and observed. Fifth, it is possible that more intelligent indi- could be measured as such; for instance, the degree to viduals describe themselves differently than less intelligent which a person can aptly deal with complex ideas and con- individuals, especially in high-stakes assessment setting, flicting information could be used as indicators of Intellect. and thus the associations observed in the present study Admittedly, it would be necessary to provide beforehand a could be due, at least in part, to an association between theoretical distinction between Intellect operationalized as intelligence and the self-report method instead of personal- a maximum performance and Intelligence. Such an endea- ity. Our study design did not allow to control for this possi- vor could prove arduous given that to our knowledge, no ble method bias. Sixth, as secondary data from real-life theoretical model of personality conceptualizes traits as assessment settings was used to conduct the analyses, there abilities, or could support a measure of maximal perfor- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. was limited available information about the specific context mance (e.g., how could a trait such as introversion be oper- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. in which each participant was assessed. ationalized as a maximal performance, and what would be In conclusion, despite these limitations and significant a valid indicator of being proficient at being introverted?). methodological differences, our results supported the Nevertheless, such research could contribute to our overall principal conclusions of DeYoung et al.’s (2014) study. understanding of the complex and multifaceted relation- Notable methodological differences are that personality ships at play between intelligence and personality. and intelligence were assessed with different instruments, and that samples included participants from different countries (United States vs. Canada) who were assessed References in different languages (English vs. French) and in different Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: contexts (research vs. real-life settings). These observations Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, only strengthen the validity and robustness of the replicated 227–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1 findings. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personal- One important limitation shared by both studies is that ity, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121. personality was assessed with self-report measures and with 2.219 descriptors referring to typical behavior, while intelligence Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-humility, the Big Five, and was assessed through tests measuring maximal perfor- the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 73, 1322–1354. mance. To better test the hypothesis that personality, and https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00351.x Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & in particular the Intellect aspect of Openness to Experience, Smith, M. A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job encompasses intelligence, future studies should investigate applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal the relationship between personality and intelligence using of Selection and Assessment, 14, 317–335. https://doi.org/ more coherent measurement methods. For example, it is 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.x Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, possible that people with lower Openness to Experience self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of have lower levels of cognitive functioning in their daily life, self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, no matter what their maximal performance is on an intelli- 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286007 gence test. In the same manner, it is possible that the Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor- analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. maximal performance in terms of Openness to Experience Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and that people can show is more strongly associated with their measurement. Oxford, UK: World Book. maximal performance on an intelligence test than to their Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality typical Openness to Experience-related behaviors. In this predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudi- nal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, line of thought, there have been numerous studies on the 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0 association between self-reported measures of intelligence Chevrier, J.-M. (1987). Batterie générale de tests d’aptitudes, B- and personality. However, self-reported measures of intelli- 1002 [General Aptitude Test Battery, B-1002]. Ottawa, Canada: gence have been shown to be imprecise substitutes for École des sciences de la réadaptation. Church, A. T. (1994). Relating the Tellegen and five-factor models of tested intelligence (Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994), and could personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- be contaminated by individual differences unrelated to ogy, 67, 898–909. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.898 intelligence, such as narcissism (Campbell, Rudish, & Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory Sedikides, 2002). It could be interesting, however, to use tests of the Big Five and Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 93– peer-rated measures of intelligence to eliminate the bias 114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.93 present in self-ratings. It would also be interesting, as sug- Costa, P. T. Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for gested by the authors of the replicated study, to evaluate agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41(3), 124–132 Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality 131 personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, Le Corff, Y. (2014). Inventaire de personnalité Le Corff (IPLC). 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D Manuel professionnel [Le Corff Personality Inventory (LCPI). Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure Professional Manual]. Montréal, Canada: Institut de recherches of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, psychologiques. and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569. Le Corff, Y., Gingras, V., & Busque-Carrier, M. (2017). Equivalence https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002046 of unproctored Internet testing and proctored paper-and-pencil DeYoung, C. G. (2011). Intelligence and personality. In R. J. testing of the big five. International Journal of Selection and Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Assessment, 25, 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12168 intelligence (pp. 711–737). New York, NY: Cambridge University MacCann, C. (2013). Instructed faking of the HEXACO reduces Press. facet reliability and involves more Gc than Gf. Personality and DeYoung, C. G. (2014). Openness/intellect: A dimension of person- Individual Differences, 55, 828–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/ ality reflecting cognitive exploration. In M. L. Cooper & R. J. j.paid.2013.07.007 Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychol- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2016). Inventaires de la personnalité ogy: Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 369– NEO. Manuel technique [NEO Inventories. Professional Manual] 399). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (2nd ed.) (Y. Le Corff, French-Canadian adaptation). Montréal, This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. DeYoung, C. G., Grazioplene, R. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2012). From Canada: Institut de recherches psychologiques This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait domain as a Mervielde, I., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2005). paradoxical complex. Journal of Research in Psychology, 46, Temperament, personality, and developmental psychopathology 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp. 2011.12.003 as childhood antecedents of personality disorders. Journal of DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of Personality Disorders, 19, 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1521/ Openness/Intellect: Cognitive and neuropathological correlates pedi.19.2.171.62627 of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73, Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Can personality factors 825–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x predict intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 38, DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between 1021–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.023 facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., & Silke, M. (2016). The association Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896. https://doi. between personality and cognitive ability: Going beyond simple org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880 effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 62, 39–44. https:// DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., Peterson, J. B., & Gray, J. R. (2014). doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp. 2016.03.005 Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal Rikoon, S. H., Brenneman, M., Kim, L. E., Khorramdel, L., of Personality Assessment, 96, 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/ MacCann, C., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D. (2016). Facets of 00223891.2013.806327 conscientiousness and their differential relationships with Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Personality and intelligence: Psychometric cognitive ability factors. Journal of Research in Personality, and experimental approaches. In R. J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis 61, 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.01.002 (Eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous Cambridge University Press. personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). of Personality, 69, 847–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- Personality and intelligence: Gender, the Big Five, self- 6494.696167 estimated and psychometric intelligence. International Journal Schretlen, D. J., van der Hulst, E. J., Pearlson, G. D., & Gordon, B. of Selection and Assessment, 13, 11–24. https://doi.org/ (2010). A neuropsychological study of personality: Trait open- 10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00296.x ness in relation to intelligence, fluency and executive function- Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic ing. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32, illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. 106–1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803391003689770 Journal of Personality, 62, 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Tett, R. P., Freund, K. A., Christiansen, N. D., Fox, K. E., & Coaster, j.1467-6494.1994.tb00798.x J. (2012). Faking on self-report emotional intelligence and Geiger, M., Olderbak, S., Sauter, R., & Wilhelm, O. (2018). The “g” in personality tests: Effects of faking opportunity, cognitive faking: Doublethink the validity of personality self-report ability, and job type. Personality and Individual Differences, measures for applicant selection. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 52, 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.017 2153. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02153 Verlinden, M., Veenstra, R., Ghassabian, A., Jansen, P. W., Horn, J. L. (1968). Organization of abilities and the development of Hofman, A., Jaddoe, V. W., Verhulst, F. C., & Tiemeier, H. intelligence. Psychological Review, 75, 242–259. https://doi. (2014). Executive functioning and non-verbal intelligence as org/10.1037/h0025662 predictors of bullying in early elementary school. Journal of Horn, J. L. (1994). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. In Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 953–956. https://doi.org/ R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 10.1007/s10802-013-9832-y 443–451). New York, NY: Macmillan. Wolf, M. B., & Ackerman, P. L. (2005). Extraversion and intelligence: Institute of Psychological Research. (2014). g-test vc : Manuel A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual [g-test vc: manual]. Montreal, Canada: Institute of Psycholog- Differences, 39, 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005. ical Research. 02.020 Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Angleitner, A., Reimann, R., & Vernon, Wonderlic, E. F. (2007). Wonderlic Personnel Test – Revised: P. A. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on the Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. covariance of facets defining the domains of the five-factor Ziegler, M., Dietl, E., Danay, E., Vogel, M., & Bühner, M. (2011). model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, Predicting training success with general mental ability, specific 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00137-4 ability tests, and (un)structured interviews: A meta-analysis Johnson, J. A. (1994). Clarification of factor five with the help of with unique samples. International Journal of Selection & the AB5C model. European Journal of Personality, 8, 311–334. Assessment, 19, 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080408 2389.2011.00544.x Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41(3), 124–132 132 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality History ORCID Received February 27, 2019 Marc-André Bédard Revision received August 22, 2019 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4646-302X Accepted August 23, 2019 Published online November 26, 2019 Marc-André Bédard Université de Sherbrooke Faculté d’éducation Acknowledgments Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1 The authors thank the Institute of Psychological Research in Canada Montreal for permission to use the data for the LCPI and g-test. marc-andre.bedard3@usherbrooke.ca This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41(3), 124–132 Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-