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 Department of Vocational Guidance, Faculty of Education, University of Sherbrooke, QC, Canada 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 that have been widely studied over the last century, in large part due to their ability to explain important aspects of life, such as academic and work performance (Chamorro-Pre- muzic, & Furnham, 2003 ; Ziegler, Dietl, Danay, Vogel, & Bühner, 2011 ). Traditionally, both constructs have been considered as either indirectly related or not at all related (Eysenck, 1994 ). However, a few researchers have recently suggested that intelligence, through its influence on peo- ple ’ s thoughts and behaviors, could be integrated within broader models of personality (DeYoung, 2011 ). As a result, there has been much debate and little consensus about the nature of the association between personality and intelligence. Today, the default model of the structure of personality traits is the Big Five taxonomy, as it is currently the most empirically validated (Mervielde, De Clercq, De Fruyt, & Van Leeuwen, 2005 ; Saucier, & Goldberg, 2001 ). Recently, each of the Big Five domains has been theorized to include two distinct (though correlated) factors, or aspects (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007 ). Indeed, a behavior genetic study using large samples found that two genetic factors are responsible for the shared variance of the six facets scales that make up each of the Big Five dimensions in the NEO-PI-R (Jang, Livesley, Angleitner, Reimann, & Vernon, 2002 ). This finding is supported by several studies that reported NEO-PI facets of each dimension splitting off into two groups of factors (Ashton & Lee, 2005 ; Church, 1994 ; Church & Burke, 1994 ; Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991 ; Depue & Collins, 1999 ; DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005 ; Johnson, 1994 ; Saucier & Goldberg, 2001 ; in DeYoung et al., 2007 ). As such, Openness to experience encompasses the Openness and Intellect aspects; Conscien- tiousness encompasses the Industriousness and Orderli- ness aspects; Extraversion encompasses the Assertiveness and Enthusiasm aspects; Agreeableness encompasses the Compassion and Politeness aspects; and Emotional Stability encompasses the Volatility and Withdrawal aspects (DeYoung et al., 2007 ). The identification of these 10 aspects was the basis for DeYoung, Quilty, Peterson, and Gray ( 2014 ) study on the association between personality traits and intelligence. DeYoung has recently suggested a theoretical framework integrating intelligence within personality (DeYoung, 2011 , 2014 ; DeYoung, Grazioplene, & Peterson, 2012 ) as an alter- native way to explain the relationship between both con- structs. DeYoung et al. ’ s ( 2014 ) study objective was to clarify the empirical relationship between personality and intelligence, with the premise that the Intellect aspect of the Openness to Experience dimension would encompass intelligence because it includes descriptors of intelligence such as perceived intelligence and intellectual engagement (DeYoung, 2011 ). It was thus hypothesized that only aspects from the Openness to Experience domain should be empir- ically associated with intelligence, with the Intellect aspect 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 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. counterpart aspect, Openness. Subsequently, DeYoung et al. ( 2014 ) sought to confirm this hypothesis by analyzing 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- gence scores ( g , verbal, and nonverbal), while its Openness aspect, as well as Agreeableness dimension and its Com- passion aspect, were consistently correlated with g and ver- bal intelligence, but not with nonverbal intelligence. Neuroticism and its two aspects were correlated with non- verbal intelligence only and in only one sample. As such, it is possible that Intellect is responsible for the association between Openness to Experience and nonverbal intelli- gence, and that the association between Compassion and verbal intelligence is responsible for the association between Agreeableness, g , and verbal intelligence. A unique and innovative contribution of DeYoung et al. ( 2014 ) was the study of the unique variance of both Openness and Intellect aspects in relation to intelligence and its facets. The authors sought to test the possibility that Openness, which does not conceptually encompass intelli- gence, might not be associated with intelligence after controlling for its shared variance with Intellect. Sequential regressions indicated that only Intellect incrementally predicted g and nonverbal intelligence, while both Intellect and Openness contributed incrementally to the prediction of verbal intelligence. The present study sought to replicate these findings because of their relevance in the study of the association between intelligence and personality. This study also aimed to extend the original study ’ s methodology by computing the independent associations between aspects from all five personality traits, as opposed to only Openness to Experi- ence, and intelligence ( g, verbal, nonverbal). This extension is of interest because the other four domains of the Big Five have been found to correlate with intelligence in recent studies: Conscientiousness (Rikoon et al., 2016 ), Extraver- sion (Wolf & Ackerman, 2005 ), Agreeableness (Schretlen, van der Hulst, Pearlson, & Gordon, 2010 ), and Emotional Stability (Rammstedt, Danner, & Martin, 2016 ). However, past findings regarding such associations have often been contradictory (see Furnham, Moutafi, & Chamorro-Pre- muzic, 2005 ; Schretlen et al., 2010 ). Studying the unique variance shared between the 10 aspects of the Big Five and intelligence could help explain previous contradictory findings. Therefore, the current study aimed to replicate DeYoung et al. ’ s ( 2014 ) findings concerning the relation between intelligence and the two aspects of Openness to Experience and to extend the original study ’ s findings by exploring the associations between intelligence and the aspects of the other four Big Five dimensions. Method Participants and Procedure The sample included 66 men and 147 women ( N = 213 ), aged between 18 and 64 ( M = 30 59 , SD = 8 82 ). It con- sisted of respondents from the database of the Canadian editor (the Institute of Psychological Research) who com- pleted the online French-Canadian versions of the Le Corff Personality Inventory (LCPI) (Le Corff, 2014 ) and of the g -test (Institute of Psychological Research, 2014 ) in real-life assessment settings, such as personnel selection, organiza- tional psychology, vocational counseling, and coaching. Respondents were chosen from the database on the condi- tion of having completed both instruments. Given the various evaluation settings, not all participants completed the tests at the same time, although a majority ( n = 192 ) completed both tests within the same week, with most ( n = 137 ) completing both on the same day. Measures Personality Dimensions and aspects of the Big Five were measured with the LCPI (Le Corff, 2014 ). This 104 -item, non-timed questionnaire measures the Big Five personality dimen- sions 1 as well as 10 underlying aspects, two per dimension, which are conceptually based on DeYoung ’ s 10 aspects of the Big Five (DeYoung et al., 2007 ). Each dimension score is obtained by the sum of scores of its two aspect scales. Respondents rate the extent to which each item of the LCPI accurately describes them using a 5 -point Likert-type scale. Of the 104 items, 42 ( 40 4 %) are reverse scored to control for acquiescence and nay-saying. Each of the ten aspect scales includes between 8 and 12 items. Cronbach alphas ( α ) for the LCPI ranged as follows: . 71 (Openness to Experience; 21 items), . 77 (Agreeableness; 19 items), . 83 (Conscientiousness; 20 items), . 87 (Extraver- sion; 22 items), and . 86 (Emotional Stability; 22 items). Test – retest reliability over a 1 - to 3 -week interval ranged from . 74 (Agreeableness) to . 89 (Conscientiousness). Con- vergent correlations between the LCPI and the NEO-PI- 3 (French-Canadian version) were high for Neuroticism/ Emotional stability ( r = 88 ), Extraversion ( r = . 80 ), Open- ness to Experience ( r = . 79 ), and Conscientiousness ( r = 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 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality 125 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. conceptual differences; most notably, the LCPI Agree- ableness dimension does not assess Straightforwardness (Le Corff, 2014 ; McCrae & Costa, 2016 ). Cronbach α for the 10 LCPI aspects ranged as follows: . 57 (Politeness; 8 items), . 58 (Openness; 9 items), . 69 (Compassion; 11 items), 70 (Orderliness; 8 items), . 71 (Intellect; 12 items), . 74 (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 (Volatility, Industriousness and Orderliness). Intelligence Intelligence was assessed with the French-Canadian version of the g -test (Institute of Psychological Research, 2014 ). It includes 50 multiple choice items, and participants have 12 min to provide as many correct answers as possible. The g -test measures the g factor of intelligence (Carroll, 1993 ; Horn, 1968 , 1994 ) using eight subscales: Antonym – Synonym ( 7 items), Word association ( 9 items), Understanding ( 6 items), Numbers series and sequences ( 3 items), Mathematical reasoning ( 15 items), Logic ( 6 items), Spatial ( 2 items), and Perception ( 2 items). Cronbach α of these subscales vary from 74 to 91 , although they have not been measured for the three sub- scales with three items or less. The overall Cronbach α is 82 (Institute of Psychological Research, 2014 ). It is possible to obtain verbal and nonverbal intelligence scores by splitting the g- test ’ s eight subtests into two parts. The verbal intelligence scale includes the 22 items from the Antonym – Synonym, Word association, and Understanding subscales. The nonverbal scale includes the 28 items from the Numbers series and sequences, Mathematical reasoning, Logic, Spatial, and Perception subscales. In the current sample, Cronbach α for both these scales were . 75 The g -test results showed high convergent validity with the French versions of the General Aptitude Test Battery (Chevrier, 1987 ) ( r = . 77 with the g factor only) and the Wonderlic ( 2007 ) ( r = . 84 ). Results Correlations between the three intelligence variables and Big Five dimensions and aspects are shown in Table 1 . As expected, among all five dimensions, Openness to Experi- ence showed the greatest correlation with g , verbal, and nonverbal intelligence. Statistically significant correlations were also found between the three intelligence variables and the four other Big Five dimensions (varying from . 18 to . 43 ) and their aspects (varying from . 16 to . 39 ). In general, correlations tended to be higher for verbal ( Mdn r = . 26 ) than nonverbal intelligence ( Mdn r = . 21 ), although Fisher ’ s r to z transformation indicated that the differences between correlations were not statistically significant. It is important to note that correlations between Big Five dimensions (and consequently, between their aspects) were high, varying between . 38 (Agreeableness with Extraversion) and . 62 (Agreeableness with Emotional Stability), with a Mdn of . 50 Sequential multiple regressions were performed to assess the independent association of each aspect of the Big Five dimensions with g , verbal, and nonverbal intelligence. Two sequential regression analyses were conducted for each 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 126 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. In the first regression, one aspect of a given dimension (e.g., Intellect) was entered in the first step, and the other aspect (e.g., Openness) was entered in the second step. In the sec- ond regression, the order in which the aspects were entered was reversed. Furthermore, to assess the potential con- founding effects of participants ’ sex and age, these variables were entered as covariates in the regression analyses, before entering the other independent variables (personality aspects). Results showed that neither age nor sex was significantly associated with g , verbal, and nonver- bal intelligence (all p s > . 05 and R 2 < . 01 ). Consequently, these covariates were not included in the regression models presented below. Regression results for the two aspects of Openness to Experience are presented in Table 2 . Both Intellect and Openness were associated with all three intelligence variables. Intellect shared significant unique variance with g , verbal, and nonverbal intelligence, after controlling for Openness. Openness was incrementally associated with verbal intelligence and, to a lesser extent, g , but not with nonverbal intelligence, after controlling for Intellect. As shown in Table 3 , within the Conscientiousness domain, both Industriousness and Orderliness were associ- ated with all three intelligence variables. However, Industri- ousness shared unique variance with g and verbal intelligence only, and Orderliness was not associated with any intelli- gence variable after controlling for Industriousness. 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 controlling for Enthusiasm. Table 5 presents regression results for the two aspects of Agreeableness, which were significantly associated with the three intelligence variables. Politeness shared significant unique variance with g and nonverbal intelligence after controlling for Compassion, whereas the latter was not associated with intelligence after controlling for Politeness. Lastly, as shown in Table 6 , in the Emotional Stability dimension, both Withdrawal and Volatility were associated with the intelligence variables. Withdrawal shared unique variance with g , verbal, and nonverbal intelligence, after controlling for Volatility. The association between Volatility and the three intelligence variables, however, became non- significant after controlling for Withdrawal. Discussion The first objective of this study was to replicate DeYoung et al. ’ s ( 2014 ) findings concerning the relation between Openness to Experience and intelligence. Overall, our results are consistent with the replicated study. As expected, Table 2 Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of Openness to Experience Criterion Predictors β t R 2 Δ R 2 g Openness .310 4.730** .096** – Intellect .273 3.724** .152** .056** Verbal Openness .363 5.654** .132** – Intellect .273 3.803** .188** .056** Nonverbal Openness .207 3.072** .043** – Intellect .227 2.970** .081** .039** g Openness .360 5.601** .129** – Intellect .173 2.357* .152* .022* Verbal Openness .386 6.082** .149** – Intellect .226 3.149** .188** .038** Nonverbal Openness .274 4.132** .075** – Intellect .093 1.224 .081 .007 Notes. N = 213. Δ R 2 = incremental R 2 for each predictor when entered after the other predictor. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Table 3 Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of Conscientiousness Criterion Predictors β t R 2 Δ R 2 g Industriousness .262 3.947** .069** – Orderliness .069 0.724 .071 .002 Verbal Industriousness .268 4.044** .072** – Orderliness .069 0.725 .074 .002 Nonverbal Industriousness .212 3.149** .045** – Orderliness .057 0.593 .046 .002 g Orderliness .222 3.303** .049** – Industriousness .213 2.225* .071* .022* Verbal Orderliness .226 3.370** .051** – Industriousness .219 2.292* .074* .023* Nonverbal Orderliness .180 2.657** .032** – Industriousness .171 1.763 .046 .014 Notes. N = 213. Δ R 2 = incremental R 2 for each predictor when entered after the other predictor. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Table 4 Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of Extraversion Criterion Predictor β t R 2 Δ R 2 g Assertiveness .227 3.385** .051** – Enthusiasm .059 0.601 .053 .002 Verbal Assertiveness .258 3.875** .066** – Enthusiasm .012 0.120 .067 .000 Nonverbal Assertiveness .159 2.343* .025* – Enthusiasm .116 1.162 .032 .006 g Enthusiasm .194 2.874** .038** – Assertiveness .183 1.852 .053 .015 Verbal Enthusiasm .184 2.718** .034** – Assertiveness .266 2.712** .067** .033** Nonverbal Enthusiasm .171 2.514* .029* – Assertiveness .074 0.738 .032 .003 Notes. N = 213. Δ R 2 = incremental R 2 for each predictor when entered after the other predictor. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41 (3), 124 – 132 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality 127 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Openness to Experience is the Big Five dimension that showed the strongest correlation with intelligence. This correlation was slightly higher in our sample ( r = . 39 ) than in DeYoung et al. ’ s samples ( r = . 37 and . 31 ). Also, as in the replicated study, Openness to Experience was more strongly associated with verbal than with nonverbal intelligence. Again, these two correlations were slightly higher in the pre- sent study ( r = . 43 for verbal and . 28 for nonverbal intelli- gence) than those reported by DeYoung et al. ( 2014 ; r = 40 and . 35 for verbal, . 18 and . 16 for nonverbal intelligence). DeYoung hypothesized that Intellect ’ s unique variance within Openness to Experience would explain the shared variance between this dimension and verbal and nonverbal intelligence because it includes descriptors of intelligence and intellectual engagement. Consequently, it was expected that the association between intelligence and the unique variance of the Openness aspect would be much less sub- stantial. Hierarchical regressions in both the original study and the current study tend toward confirming a significant association between Intellect and verbal and nonverbal intelligence, even after controlling for its shared variance with Openness. It is worth noting that in the present study, the variance of nonverbal intelligence explained by the unique variance of Intellect was much less than in DeYoung et al. ’ s ( 2014 ) two samples ( Δ R 2 = . 04 vs. . 21 and . 22 ). Meanwhile, as was the case in the replicated study, after controlling for Intellect, the Openness aspect was associ- ated with verbal intelligence, but not with nonverbal intelli- gence. As discussed by DeYoung et al. ( 2014 ), it is possible that implicit learning, the ability to learn patterns uncon- sciously, plays a key role in this association, as it is associ- ated with Openness (but not Intellect) and with verbal intelligence (but not with nonverbal intelligence). There- fore, individuals high in Openness could have greater verbal skills in part because of their capacity for implicit learning of the patterns of language (DeYoung et al., 2014 ). Moreover, it is important to note that approximately half the shared variance between verbal intelligence and Openness to Experience was related to the shared variance between Intellect and Openness and the other half was related to each aspect ’ s unique variance. These two aspects share many descriptors that may be associated with a higher interest in exploring the richness and possibilities of language (e.g., innovative and curious ), thus promoting the development of verbal intelligence. It is also possible that different mechanisms contribute to the association of each aspect with verbal intelligence. While the intellectual curiosity and interest in complexity associated with high Intellect may be a fertile ground for the development of verbal intelligence, the same process may occur with high 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; Ackerman, 1996 ), which was itself based on Cattell ’ s invest- ment theory (Cattell, 1957 ). The PPIK Theory states that one ’ s research and accumulation of knowledge is precursor to the development of crystallized intelligence, whereas the development of fluid intelligence rests on other factors which are conceptualized as processes such as reasoning, working memory, perceptual speed, and spatial rotation. The second objective of this study was to extend the original study ’ s findings by exploring the associations between intelligence and the aspects of the other four Big Five dimensions. Aside from Openness to Experience, DeYoung et al. ( 2014 ) reported significant correlations between intelligence and Neuroticism and Agreeableness. In contrast, the present study found that all Big Five dimensions and their aspects were significantly correlated with g as well as with verbal and nonverbal intelligence. One possible explanation comes from the fact that correla- tions between personality scales in our sample were high Table 5 Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of Agreeableness Criterion Predictor β t R 2 Δ R 2 g Compassion .233 3.487** .054** Politeness .282 3.047** .095** .040** Verbal Compassion .245 3.675** .060** Politeness .171 1.829 .075 .015 Nonverbal Compassion .182 2.696** .033** Politeness .338 3.646** .091** .058** g Politeness .306 4.676** .094** Compassion .035 0.381 .095 .001 Verbal Politeness .259 3.892** .067** Compassion .125 1.338 .075 .008 Nonverbal Politeness .299 4.549** .089** Compassion .055 0.595 .091 .002 Notes. N = 213. Δ R 2 = incremental R 2 for each predictor when entered after the other predictor. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Table 6 Sequential regressions models for the two aspects of Emotional Stability Criterion Predictor β t R 2 Δ R 2 g Volatility .200 2.971** .040** Withdrawal .254 3.036** .080** .040** Verbal Volatility .183 2.696** .033** Withdrawal .243 2.895** .070** .038** Nonverbal Volatility .183 2.703** .033** Withdrawal .220 2.611* .064* .030* g Withdrawal .281 4.260** .079** Volatility .045 0.542 .080 .001 Verbal Withdrawal .264 3.976** .070** Volatility .034 0.402 .070 .001 Nonverbal Withdrawal .250 3.748** .062** Volatility .048 0.574 .064 .001 Notes. N = 213. Δ R 2 = incremental R 2 for each predictor when entered after the other predictor. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41 (3), 124 – 132 Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing 128 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ( Mdn r = 50 ), and significantly higher than previously reported for the LCPI in a sample of university students ( Mdn r = . 23 ; Le Corff, Gingras, & Busque-Carrier, 2017 ). High stakes assessment settings such as personnel selection are known to produce more desirable personality profiles, that is, higher scores on Openness to Experience, Conscien- tiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability (Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick, & Smith, 2006 ). Since studies (Geiger, Olderbak, Sauter, & Wilhelm, 2018 ; MacCann, 2013 ; Tett, Freund, Christiansen, Fox, & Coaster, 2012 ) have shown intelligence to be associated with greater personality scores inflation (faking good), it is possible that the presence of respondents in our sample who were assessed in high stakes settings (most notably personnel selection) has artificially increased the associa- tions between personality traits and intelligence. Nonethe- less, our results are consistent with several previous studies that reported correlations between intelligence and Extraversion and Conscientiousness (Rikoon et al., 2016 ; Wolf & Ackerman, 2005 ); however, many other previously conducted studies reported contradictory find- ings. As stated previously, it is possible that studying each aspect ’ s unique variance with intelligence could help refine our comprehension of this matter. Within Conscientiousness, the Industriousness aspect was found to incrementally predict verbal intelligence only, after controlling for Orderliness, while the opposite did not occur. Previous research reported both negative and posi- tive correlations between Conscientiousness and intelli- gence (Moutafi, Furnham, & Paltiel, 2005 ; Rikoon et al., 2016 ). These results could reflect the possibility that indus- trious people, who are more likely to work hard during their education, could develop their verbal intelligence more effi- ciently than their nonverbal intelligence, given that experi- ence and learning contributes more to verbal intelligence than it does to nonverbal intelligence. In a similar fashion, the Assertiveness aspect of Extraver- sion shared unique variance with verbal intelligence, which was not the case for Enthusiasm. These results are consis- tent with Wolf and Ackerman ( 2005 ) ’ s meta-analysis, in which effect sizes were larger between intelligence and social potency (conceptually similar to Assertiveness) than between intelligence and social closeness (which overlaps with Enthusiasm). Wolf and Ackerman ( 2005 ) also found that the Extraversion dimension was more strongly associ- ated with intelligence than either social potency or social closeness. It was also the case in the present study: Assertiveness and Enthusiasm together explained 5 3 % of the variance of g , while neither explained a significant part of unique variance after controlling for its share variance with the other aspect. Thus, the shared variance between Assertiveness and Enthusiasm appears to be the main cause of their association with intelligence. Unexpectedly, the Politeness aspect of the Agreeableness dimension was associated with nonverbal intelligence after controlling for the Compassion aspect, while the reverse was not true. DeYoung et al. ( 2014 ) had originally found Compassion to be more strongly correlated with intelli- gence than Politeness. This disparity could be explained by methodological differences between studies. DeYoung et al. ( 2007 ) defined Politeness as “ a reasoned, or at least cognitively influenced, consideration of and respect for others ’ needs and desires, e.g., cooperation, compliance, and straightforwardness. ” While cooperation and compli- ance are encompassed by the LCPI (Le Corff, 2014 ) Politeness scale, people with high Politeness as also defined as “ preferring to act as to maintain social cohesion and avoid conflicts and confrontations. ” More precisely, 4 of the 8 items from the LCPI Politeness scale measure con- flict-seeking/avoidance in some fashion, while only 3 of 10 do so in DeYoung et al. ’ s Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS; 2007 ). It is thus possible that the LCPI Politeness scale is more strongly related to aggression than its BFAS counter- part. As DeYoung et al. ( 2014 ) noted, measures of aggres- sion (the tendency to actively seek conflict) are known to be negatively correlated with intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997 ), particularly nonverbal intelligence (Verlinden et al., 2014 ). It is possible that the association between intelligence and the LCPI ’ s Politeness scale, in which half the items measure the avoidance of conflicts, reflects this observation. Lastly, within Emotional Stability (reversed Neuroticism), the Withdrawal aspect shared unique variance with both verbal and nonverbal intelligence, while the Volatility aspect did not. Traditionally, the well-documented weak negative association between Neuroticism and intelligence has been attributed to test anxiety (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997 ). Given that the anxiety trait is located in the With- drawal aspect, our results appear to support the hypothesis that anxious individuals are more likely to perform poorly on intelligence tests. The results of the current study must be interpreted in the light of its methodological limitations. First, sample size was limited ( n = 213 ), albeit similar to those of the repli- cated study ( 125 undergraduates and 191 white men). Second, intelligence was assessed with a brief, 12 -minute measure. Even if its correlation with the Wonderlic is more than acceptable ( r = . 84 ), it is not as exhaustive as a com- plete test battery, such as the WAIS-IV. Third, the Polite- ness and Openness aspect scales of the LCPI had internal consistency coefficients below . 60 . This lower reliability may have led to an underestimation of the strength of the associations involving these scales, due to the possible higher proportion of measurement error (although lower internal consistency can also indicate that a scale measures a broad or complex construct). Fourth, personality and Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41 (3), 124 – 132 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality 129 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. intelligence were not assessed at the same time in all cases, with delays longer than a week in 10 % of cases; this may have diminished the magnitude of the correlations observed. Fifth, it is possible that more intelligent indi- viduals describe themselves differently than less intelligent individuals, especially in high-stakes assessment setting, and thus the associations observed in the present study could be due, at least in part, to an association between intelligence and the self-report method instead of personal- ity. Our study design did not allow to control for this possi- ble method bias. Sixth, as secondary data from real-life assessment settings was used to conduct the analyses, there was limited available information about the specific context in which each participant was assessed. In conclusion, despite these limitations and significant methodological differences, our results supported the principal conclusions of DeYoung et al. ’ s ( 2014 ) study. Notable methodological differences are that personality and intelligence were assessed with different instruments, and that samples included participants from different countries (United States vs. Canada) who were assessed in different languages (English vs. French) and in different contexts (research vs. real-life settings). These observations only strengthen the validity and robustness of the replicated findings. One important limitation shared by both studies is that personality was assessed with self-report measures and with descriptors referring to typical behavior, while intelligence was assessed through tests measuring maximal perfor- mance. To better test the hypothesis that personality, and in particular the Intellect aspect of Openness to Experience, encompasses intelligence, future studies should investigate the relationship between personality and intelligence using more coherent measurement methods. For example, it is possible that people with lower Openness to Experience have lower levels of cognitive functioning in their daily life, no matter what their maximal performance is on an intelli- gence test. In the same manner, it is possible that the maximal performance in terms of Openness to Experience that people can show is more strongly associated with their maximal performance on an intelligence test than to their typical Openness to Experience-related behaviors. In this line of thought, there have been numerous studies on the association between self-reported measures of intelligence and personality. However, self-reported measures of intelli- gence have been shown to be imprecise substitutes for tested intelligence (Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994 ), and could be contaminated by individual differences unrelated to intelligence, such as narcissism (Campbell, Rudish, & Sedikides, 2002 ). It could be interesting, however, to use peer-rated measures of intelligence to eliminate the bias present in self-ratings. It would also be interesting, as sug- gested by the authors of the replicated study, to evaluate personality traits using indicators of maximal performance instead of indicators of typical behavior. As DeYoung ( 2011 ) argues, many personality traits involve abilities and could be measured as such; for instance, the degree to which a person can aptly deal with complex ideas and con- flicting information could be used as indicators of Intellect. Admittedly, it would be necessary to provide beforehand a theoretical distinction between Intellect operationalized as a maximum performance and Intelligence. Such an endea- vor could prove arduous given that to our knowledge, no theoretical model of personality conceptualizes traits as abilities, or could support a measure of maximal perfor- mance (e.g., how could a trait such as introversion be oper- ationalized as a maximal performance, and what would be a valid indicator of being proficient at being introverted?). Nevertheless, such research could contribute to our overall understanding of the complex and multifaceted relation- ships at play between intelligence and personality. References Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22 , 227 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1 Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personal- ity, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121 , 219 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121. 2.219 Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-humility, the Big Five, and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 73 , 1322 – 1354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00351.x Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & Smith, M. A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14 , 317 – 335. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.x Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 , 358 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286007 Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor- analytic studies . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement . Oxford, UK: World Book. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudi- nal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37 , 319 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0 Chevrier, J.-M. (1987). Batterie générale de tests d ’ aptitudes, B- 1002 [General Aptitude Test Battery, B-1002]. Ottawa, Canada: École des sciences de la réadaptation. Church, A. T. (1994). Relating the Tellegen and five-factor models of personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 67 , 898 – 909. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.898 Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and Tellegen ’ s three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 , 93 – 114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.93 Costa, P. T. Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Journal of Individual Differences (2020), 41 (3), 124 – 132 Ó 2019 Hogrefe Publishing 130 M.-A. Bédard & Y. Le Corff, Intelligence and Personality This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12 , 887 – 898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 , 491 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002046 DeYoung, C. G. (2011). Intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 711 – 737). New York, NY: Cambridge University Pres