Intelligence and Personality One pu

Intelligence and Personality One purpose of this chapter is to explore the conceptual relation of intelligence to personality. Another is to review empirical research on the relation of intelligence to other traits. Personality and intelligence have often been viewed as distinct domains that intersect only to a very limited degree. However, research on both personality and intelligence over the last three decades suggests the possibility that, both conceptually and empirically, intelligence could be integrated with larger models of personality. Such an integration may allow a more unified conception of the structure and sources of individual differences. Following presentation of working definitions for intelligence and personality, the chapter reviews arguments for and against three of the most common distinctions that are drawn between intelligence and personality. These three dichotomies provide an overview of the major conceptual issues at stake. Given the amount of thought that has been devoted to the conceptual relation of intelligence to personality, this chapter cannot hope to be comprehensive. Additional perspectives can be found in three excellent edited collections (Collis & Messick, 2001; Saklofske & Zeidner, 1995; Sternberg & Ruzgis, 1994). Additionally, the chapter discusses whether intelligence can be located within the Big Five model (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Finally, the Big Five personality dimensions serve to organize a review of empirical associations of intelligence with various personality traits, with a separate section at the end for associations with sociopolitical orientation. Definition of Intelligence In 1994, a group of 52 experts in the study of intelligence and related fields endorsed the following definition of intelligence (Gottfredson, 1997a, p. 13): Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do. This definition emphasizes that intelligence represents the ability to solve problems (including problems of comprehension) by thinking. Intelligence is widely considered to occupy the apex of a hierarchy of more specific abilities that are all related to each other (Carroll, 1993). Indeed, the concept of a general intelligence, or
Intelligence and Personality 3
“g,” was first elaborated in psychology because of the so-called “positive manifold,” the tendency for performance on all cognitive tests to be positively correlated, regardless of their content (Jensen, 1998; Spearman, 1904). Intelligence is posited as the general ability that accounts for the covariation of the many specific abilities. However, specific abilities covary to different degrees, and g cannot account for all of the shared variance among them. Thus, below g in the hierarchy are a number of more specific but still fairly general abilities; below these are the many specific abilities, and below these are various different instances or measures of those specific abilities (Carroll, 1993; Johnson & Bouchard, 2005a, 2005b). The most widely used distinction between abilities, at the level of the hierarchy immediately below g, is between fluid and crystallized intelligence (Horn & Cattell, 1966), though other factors may also be identified at this level (Carroll, 1993). Fluid intelligence describes abilities that are innate and not dependent on prior education or experience (and thus, in theory, cannot be modified by experience), whereas crystallized intelligence describes abilities that rely on knowledge or skill acquired from experience. Traditional measures of fluid and crystallized intelligence are differentially related to various

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Kecerdasan dan kepribadian satu bab ini bertujuan untuk mengeksplorasi hubungan konseptual intelijen untuk kepribadian. Lain adalah untuk meninjau penelitian empiris pada hubungan kecerdasan untuk sifat-sifat lainnya. Kepribadian dan intelijen telah sering dipandang sebagai berbeda domain yang berpotongan hanya untuk tingkat yang sangat terbatas. Namun, penelitian pada kedua kepribadian dan intelijen dalam tiga dasawarsa terakhir menunjukkan kemungkinan bahwa, kedua konseptual dan secara empiris, kecerdasan dapat diintegrasikan dengan model-model yang lebih besar dari kepribadian. Integrasi tersebut dapat mengizinkan konsepsi yang lebih bersatu dari struktur dan sumber perbedaan individual. Setelah presentasi dari definisi kerja untuk kecerdasan dan kepribadian, Bab ulasan argumen untuk dan melawan tiga perbedaan paling umum yang ditarik antara kecerdasan dan kepribadian. Dikotomi tiga ini memberikan tinjauan tentang isu-isu konseptual utama dipertaruhkan. Mengingat jumlah pikiran yang telah setia hubungan konseptual kecerdasan untuk kepribadian, Bab ini tidak bisa berharap agar komprehensif. Perspektif tambahan dapat ditemukan di tiga koleksi diedit hebat (Collis & Messick, 2001; Saklofske & Zeidner, 1995; Sternberg & Ruzgis, 1994). Selain itu, Bab membahas apakah intelijen dapat terletak dalam model lima besar (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Akhirnya, dimensi kepribadian lima besar melayani untuk mengatur review empiris Asosiasi intelijen dengan berbagai karakter kepribadian, dengan bagian terpisah di akhir asosiasi dengan orientasi sosial-politik. Definisi intelijen pada tahun 1994, sekelompok 52 ahli dalam studi intelijen dan bidang terkait didukung definisi berikut intelijen (Gottfredson, 1997a, ms. 13): intelijen adalah kemampuan mental yang sangat umum yang, antara lain, melibatkan kemampuan untuk alasan, rencana, memecahkan masalah, berpikir secara abstrak, memahami ide-ide yang kompleks, belajar dengan cepat dan belajar dari pengalaman. Hal ini tidak hanya buku pembelajaran, keterampilan akademik yang sempit atau tes kecerdasan. Agak itu mencerminkan lebih luas dan lebih kemampuan untuk memahami lingkungan kita — "penangkapan," "membuat arti" hal-hal, atau "mencari tahu" apa yang harus dilakukan. Definisi ini menekankan bahwa kecerdasan merupakan kemampuan untuk memecahkan masalah (termasuk masalah pemahaman) dengan berpikir. Intelijen secara luas dianggap menduduki puncak hirarki kemampuan yang lebih spesifik yang semuanya berhubungan dengan satu sama lain (Carroll, 1993). Memang, konsep kecerdasan umum, atau Intelligence and Personality 3 “g,” was first elaborated in psychology because of the so-called “positive manifold,” the tendency for performance on all cognitive tests to be positively correlated, regardless of their content (Jensen, 1998; Spearman, 1904). Intelligence is posited as the general ability that accounts for the covariation of the many specific abilities. However, specific abilities covary to different degrees, and g cannot account for all of the shared variance among them. Thus, below g in the hierarchy are a number of more specific but still fairly general abilities; below these are the many specific abilities, and below these are various different instances or measures of those specific abilities (Carroll, 1993; Johnson & Bouchard, 2005a, 2005b). The most widely used distinction between abilities, at the level of the hierarchy immediately below g, is between fluid and crystallized intelligence (Horn & Cattell, 1966), though other factors may also be identified at this level (Carroll, 1993). Fluid intelligence describes abilities that are innate and not dependent on prior education or experience (and thus, in theory, cannot be modified by experience), whereas crystallized intelligence describes abilities that rely on knowledge or skill acquired from experience. Traditional measures of fluid and crystallized intelligence are differentially related to various