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