ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

An instrument designed to separate 2 midlevel traits within each of the Big Five (the Big Five Aspect Scales [BFAS]) was used to clarify the relation of personality to cognitive ability. The BFAS measures Openness to Experience and Intellect as separate (although related) traits, and refers to the broader Big Five trait as Openness/Intellect. In 2 samples (N = 125 and 189), Intellect was independently associated with general intelligence (g) and with verbal and nonverbal intelligence about equally. Openness was independently associated only with verbal intelligence. Implications of these findings are discussed for the empirical and conceptual relations of intelligence to personality and for the mechanisms potentially underlying both Openness/Intellect and cognitive ability.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 1
RUNNING HEAD: Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability
Openness to Experience, Intellect, and Cognitive Ability
Colin G. DeYoung*
University of Minnesota
Lena C. Quilty
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Jordan B. Peterson
University of Toronto
Jeremy R. Gray
Yale University
*Corresponding author: C. DeYoung, Dept. of Psychology, 75 East River Rd.,
Minneapolis, MN 55455; email: cdeyoung@umn.edu.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 2
Abstract
An instrument designed to separate two mid-level traits within each of the Big Five (the
Big Five Aspect Scales; BFAS) was used to clarify the relation of personality to cognitive
ability. The BFAS measures Openness to Experience and Intellect as separate (though
related) traits, and refers to the broader Big Five trait as Openness/Intellect. In two
samples (N = 125 and 189), Intellect was independently associated with general
intelligence (g) and with verbal and nonverbal intelligence about equally. Openness was
independently associated only with verbal intelligence. Implications of these findings are
discussed for the empirical and conceptual relations of intelligence to personality and for
the mechanisms potentially underlying both Openness/Intellect and cognitive ability.
Key Words: Openness to Experience, Intellect, Intelligence, Verbal Intelligence,
Nonverbal Intelligence
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 3
Openness to Experience, Intellect, and Cognitive Ability
The five factor model or Big Fivethe most widely used taxonomy of personality
traits in psychologywas developed empirically rather than theoretically, by examining
patterns of correlation among personality trait descriptors (John, Naumann, & Soto,
2008). After the statistical identification of five factors in the pool of personality traits, it
remained to interpret and label the factors, sometimes a contentious process. The most
extensive debate has surrounded the interpretation of the fifth factor, which has been
described variously as Culture, Intellect, Openness to Experience, and Imagination.
Currently, the most widely used label for this factor is ―Openness to Experience,‖ but the
compound label ―Openness/Intellect‖ is increasingly in use, reflecting research indicating
that Openness to Experience and Intellect represent two equally central aspects of the
broader factor, which are correlated but separable (Johnson, 1994; Saucier, 1992, 1994).
Personality traits are hierarchically organized, and Openness and Intellect can be
considered distinct traits at a level of personality organization below the Big Five
(DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). The Big Five trait Openness/Intellect reflects the
shared variance of the two lower-level traits.
Throughout this article, we refer to the Big Five factor by the compound label
―Openness/Intellect.‖ Whenever we refer to ―Openness‖ or ―Intellect‖ alone, we are
referring to a subtrait that constitutes one aspect of this domain. Trait constructs
stemming from factor analysis are capitalized as a reminder that trait labels denote
scientific constructs that may not be identical to colloquial understandings of words like
―intellect‖ or ―openness.‖ Factors need labels, but no label is perfect, and it is important
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 4
to remember that the constructs in question exist as dimensions of personality variation
independently of their labels.
Intellect encompasses perceived intelligence and intellectual engagement and is
reflected in lexical studies by adjectives like, ―intellectual,‖ ―intelligent,‖ ―clever,‖ and
―philosophical.‖ Openness encompasses engagement with perceptual and aesthetic
domains and is reflected in lexical studies by adjectives like, ―artistic,‖ ―perceptive,‖
―poetic,‖ and ―fantasy-prone.‖ The lexicon additionally includes adjectives that are
associated with both Intellect and Openness, such as ―imaginative,‖ ―original,‖ ―curious,‖
and ―innovative.‖ The latter observation led Saucier (1994) to propose ―Imagination‖ as
an alternative label for the Openness/Intellect factor as a whole, because imagination can
be manifest both intellectually and aesthetically.
The psychological function that appears to be common to all of the traits
encompassed by the Openness/Intellect factor is cognitive exploration. ―Cognition‖ here
is conceived broadly in terms of mental processes involved in learning about the world
and one’s experience, including both reasoning and perceptual processes. Cognitive
exploration involves exploration of information and is in contrast to behavioral
exploration, in which motor activity is used to explore and emphasis is given to acquiring
reward rather than information. (Behavioral exploration appears to be primarily
associated with Extraversion in the Big Five; Depue & Collins, 1999; DeYoung, 2010.)
Individuals high in Openness/Intellect display the ability and tendency to seek, detect,
comprehend, and utilize more information than those low in Openness/Intellect.
Measuring the Two Aspects of Openness/Intellect
Beyond what is common to both Openness and Intellect, an important question
for research is what distinguishes these two traits. Conceptually, the distinction between
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 5
reasoning and perceptual processes appears crucial. Intellect reflects the ability and
tendency to explore abstract information through reasoning, whereas Openness reflects
the ability and tendency to explore sensory and aesthetic information through perception,
fantasy, and artistic endeavor. Emprically, research on the question of what distinguishes
Openness and Intellect was hindered until recently by the lack of a measurement
instrument designed specifically to assess Openness and Intellect as distinct traits.
Although some measures of the broader Openness/Intellect factor were formally labeled
―Openness to Experience‖ and others ―Intellect,‖ they typically included content
reflecting both Openness and Intellect, regardless of their label, and exhibited similar
external correlates (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005).
DeYoung et al. (2007) created specific Openness and Intellect scales using the
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg et al., 2006), following the
identification of distinct but correlated Openness and Intellect factors in 15 scales
designed to measure facets (subtraits) of Openness/Intellect. Velicer’s MAP test
(O’Connor, 2000) indicated exactly two factors in the 15 facets, and both Openness and
Intellect factors were clearly marked by 6 facets, suggesting their equal importance to the
broader Openness/Intellect domain. Scales to measure these factors were developed by
examining correlations of factor scores with over 2000 IPIP items, then selecting items
that were among the most strongly correlated with each facet. Items were excluded from
the final scales if their loading on the other subfactor of Openness/Intellect was within
.10 of their primary loading (or within .10 of their loading on any other factor within the
other four of the Big Five). This procedure was repeated for the factors identified within
the other Big Five domains. The resulting instrument, the Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS;
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 6
DeYoung et al., 2007), measures two correlated subfactors, or ―aspects,‖ within each of
the Big Five.
Openness/Intellect and Intelligence
The goal of the present study was to utilize the BFAS to clarify the relations of
Openness and Intellect to cognitive ability. Openness/Intellect is the only one of the Big
Five that is consistently positively correlated with intelligence tests (r = .30; Ackerman &
Heggestad, 1997; DeYoung, 2011) with an effect size larger than two-thirds of all
significant effects reported in psychology for variables that do not share method variance
(Hemphill, 2003). Neuroticism consistently shows a weak negative correlation with
intelligence tests (r = -.15; Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997), but this correlation appears to
be due to test anxiety (Moutafi, Furnham, & Tsaousis, 2006).
The fact that Openness/Intellect shows by far the largest correlation with
intelligence tests of any of the Big Five is consistent with the fact that descriptors of
intelligence fall within this personality dimension in factor analysis. Indeed, given that
the average intercorrelation among facets of Openness/Intellect in the most widely used
Big Five inventory is only .28 (Costa & McCrae, 1992), one might argue that intelligence
should be considered a facet of the Openness/Intellect domain. Some have argued that
personality traits are distinct from abilities, with the latter reflecting maximal ability and
the former typical behavior, but this distinction has been challenged (DeYoung, 2011).
The lexical studies that produced the Big Five model have almost always included
descriptors of abilities, and personality is a broad enough concept to cover both.
The association of Openness/Intellect with intelligence is well established, but
questions remain about the associations of intelligence with Openness and Intellect
separately. Simply based on descriptive content, one would hypothesize that intelligence
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 7
tests should be associated more strongly with Intellect than with Openness. Although
previous research has lacked dedicated measures of Intellect and Openness, this
hypothesis can be provisionally tested by examining research that has utilized the NEO
PI-R facet scales (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
1
The Ideas facet of the NEO PI-R is a good
marker of Intellect, and the following four facets are good markers of Openness (listed
from largest to smallest loading): Aesthetics, Fantasy, Feelings, and Actions (DeYoung et
al., 2007). In studies that consider these facets individually, Ideas typically predicts
intelligence more strongly than do the four facets that mark Openness (DeYoung et al.,
2005; 2009; Furnham, Dissou, Sloan, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007; Holland et al., 1995;
McCrae, 1993; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2003, 2006). This pattern suggests that
Intellect is indeed more strongly associated with intelligence than is Openness.
Although Intellect appears to be more strongly associated with intelligence, the
four NEO PI-R facets that mark Openness often do show significant associations with
intelligence. However, any association between Openness and intelligence might be due
only to the variance that Openess shares with Intellect. In other words, Openness might
not be associated with intelligence after controlling for Intellect. The present study
provides the first test of this possibility, by using the BFAS Openness and Intellect scales
as simultaneous predictors in regression. Although such a test could be conducted using
facets of the NEO PI-R in previously reported data (e.g., DeYoung et al., 2005), the
present study has the advantage of using an instrument specifically designed to measure
Openness and Intellect as distinct factors at a level of personality structure below the Big
Five but above the facets.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 8
Verbal and Nonverbal Intelligence
The present study examined the relations of Openness and Intellect not only to
general intelligence (g) but also to different subcomponents of inteligence. Intelligence is
hierarchically organized, with g located at the apex of the hierarchy. Below g in the
hierarchy are a few abilities that are more specific than g but still fairly general, and
below these are a great many specific abilities (Carroll, 1993; Johnson & Bouchard,
2005a, 2005b). The most widely used distinction, at the level of the hierarchy
immediately below g, is between fluid and crystallized intelligence (Horn & Cattell,
1966). Fluid intelligence refers to abilities that are innate and independent of prior
education or experience, whereas crystallized intelligence refers to abilities that require
knowledge or skill acquired from education or experience. However, recent evidence
from factor analysis suggests that individual differences in cognitive abilities do not, in
fact, covary according to whether they are fluid or crystallized, but rather according to
whether they are verbal or nonverbal (Johnson & Bouchard, 2005a, 2005b).
Of course, some components of ability may be experience-independent (fluid)
whereas others may be experience-dependent (crystallized), but mostperhaps alltests
of cognitive ability involve both fluid and crystallized components, such that tests
traditionally considered to measure fluid versus crystallized intelligence do not, in fact,
measure those two constructs distinctly. Instead, most putatively ―fluid‖ tests measure
nonverbal intelligence, and most putatively ―crystallized‖ tests measure verbal
intelligence. The verbal tests cannot be considered purely crystallized because verbal
ability is just as heritable (genetically influenced) as nonverbal ability, even when
controlling for g (Johnson & Bouchard, 2007; Johnson et al., 2007). And the nonverbal
tests cannot be considered purely fluid, (1) because nonverbal ability is influenced by
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 9
environmental factors in studies of heritability (Johnson & Bouchard, 2007; Johnson et
al., 2007) and (2) because it may be improved by schooling (Ceci, 1991) and by training
on video games (Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007), working memory tasks (Jaeggi,
Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008; but see Moody, 2009), and other mentally
stimulating activities (Tranter & Koutstaal, 2008). For these reasons, we refer to verbal
and nonverbal intelligence, rather than to fluid and crystallized intelligence.
Total Openness/Intellect is more strongly associated with verbal than nonverbal
intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Ashton et al., 2000; Austin, Deary, &
Gibson, 1997; Baker & Bichsel, 2006; Bates & Shieles, 2003; Beauducel1, Liepmann,
Felfe, Nettelnstroth, 2007; DeYoung et al., 2005; Holland et al., 1995). The present study
examined the hypothesis that this reflects different patterns of association of verbal and
nonverbal intelligence with Intellect versus Openness. This conjecture was based in part
on three studies that have reported associations of the NEO PI-R facets with separate tests
of verbal and nonverbal intelligence (DeYoung et al., 2005; McCrae, 1993; Moutafi et
al., 2006). In these studies, the four facets that mark Openness appeared more likely to be
associated with tests of verbal intelligence than with tests of nonverbal intelligence,
whereas Ideas was often associated with both forms of intelligence about equally (but see
Holland et al., 1995). Our specific hypothesis, therefore, was that, in multiple regression,
Intellect would predict both verbal and nonverbal intelligence, whereas Openness would
predict only verbal intelligence.
Note that this hypothesis implies that Openness will be associated with verbal
intelligence even after controlling for Intellect. Why would Openness, which seems
primarily to reflect engagement with sensory information, be associated with verbal
intelligence independently of Intellect? One possible reason is that Openness is
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 10
associated with implicit learning, the ability to unconsciously detect patterns in the
environment (Kaufman et al., 2010). Implicit learning appears to contribute to verbal
ability specifically, but not to g, perhaps because it facilitates language learning
(Kaufman et al., 2010). Our hypothesis in the present study was based in part on the
recent finding that Openness and Intellect show a double dissociation in predicting
individual differences in implicit learning and working memory (Kaufman et al., 2010).
In multiple regression, Intellect was associated with working memory (a key contributor
to g; Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003; Gray & Thompson, 2004) but not implicit learning,
whereas Openness was associated with implicit learning but not working memory
(Kaufman et al., 2010). This pattern of association with basic cognitive mechanisms is in
keeping with the hypothesis that Intellect is associated with all aspects of intelligence,
whereas Openness is independently associated only with verbal intelligence. We tested
this hypothesis in two samples.
Method
Participants
Sample 1 consisted of 125 undergraduates (92 female, 33 male) at the University
of Toronto, who completed the study for course credit. By race/ethnicity, they were 46%
East Asian, 26.5% White, 13.5% South Asian, 6.5% Black, 5% Middle Eastern, and 2.5%
Hispanic. They ranged in age from 17 to 38 (M = 19.47; SD = 3.03). This sample is a
subset of the sample described by DeYoung et al. (2007; Study 2) in relation to the
construction of the BFAS. This subset came into the laboratory for a session that included
cognitive testing, whereas the rest of that sample simply completed questionnaires via the
Internet.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 11
Sample 2 consisted of 191 White men recruited from the area around New Haven,
Connecticut, including from several colleges. Flyers and Internet advertisements were
used to recruit for ―psychology studies involving genetics and brain imaging,‖ and
participation was restricted by race and sex to avoid heterogeneity in genetic data not
discussed here. Two participants were not included in analyses because BFAS data were
unavailable due to computer error. The remaining 189 ranged in age from 18 to 40 (M =
24.23; SD = 5.18). Seventy-four participants were students.
2
The rest of the sample had a
wide range of mostly lower- and middle-class occupations, with 20 indicating that they
were currently unemployed. All participants completed assessments in the laboratory and
were given monetary compensation for their participation.
Measures
Sample 1. The Big Five and their 10 aspects were assessed using the BFAS
(DeYoung et al., 2007), with responses given on a 5-point Likert scale. Each of the 10
scales comprised 10 items, and scores for the Big Five were computed by averaging
scores for the two aspect scales in each domain. Descriptive statistics for the BFAS are
presented in Table 1. Intelligence was assessed by the Matrix Reasoning and Vocabulary
subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleIII (WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997). The
Matrix Reasoning subtest is an indicator of nonverbal intelligence, requiring participants
to identify a patterned rectangle that logically completes an abstract visual pattern. The
Vocabulary subtest is an indicator of verbal intelligence. Raw scores for both subtests
were scaled to yield age appropriate scores. Matrix Reasoning had a mean of 11.74 (SD =
2.68), and Vocabulary had a mean of 11.58 (SD = 3.07). The two subtests were
correlated, r = .24 (p < .01), and the average of the two subtests was used as an estimate
of g.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 12
[Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here.]
Sample 2. The Big Five and their 10 aspects were assessed with the BFAS as in
Sample 1. Intelligence was assessed with four subtests of the WAIS-III (Wechsler, 1997).
Matrix Reasoning and Block Design were used as indicators of nonverbal intelligence.
Vocabulary and Similarities were used as indicators of verbal intelligence. Matrix
Reasoning and Vocabulary were as described for Study 1. Block Design requires
participants to recreate designs as fast as possible, using cubic blocks that are red on two
sides, white on two sides, and half-red, half-white on the other sides. Similarities requires
participants to explain analogies (e.g., ―How are an enemy and a friend alike?‖). Raw
scores for all subtests were scaled to yield age appropriate scores (Wechsler, 1997).
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the four subtests are presented in Table 2.
The average of Vocabulary and Similarities was used as an indicator of verbal
intelligence, and the average of Matrix Reasoning and Block Design was used as an
index of nonverbal intelligence. Verbal and nonverbal intelligence were correlated, r =
.38 (p < .01), and their average was used as an estimate of g (factor scores were not used,
to avoid capitalizing on sampling variability).
Results
Table 3 shows correlations between the BFAS and the cognitive variables, g
nonverbal intelligence, and verbal intelligence. As expected, Openness/Intellect and its
two aspects showed the strongest and most consistent correlations with cognitive ability.
Of interest, however, traits from two other domains, Neuroticism and Agreeableness, also
showed correlations with cognitive ability in both samples. Correlations with
Neuroticism were inconsistent across the two samples (associated with Withdrawal in
Sample 1, but with Volatility in Sample 2). In contrast, correlations with Agreeableness
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 13
were more consistent: both samples showed positive correlations of Compassion with g
and verbal intelligence.
[Insert Table 3 about here.]
The pattern of correlations of cognitive ability with the two aspects of
Openness/Intellect was as predicted, in both samples. Intellect showed correlations of
similar magnitude with both verbal and nonverbal intelligence, whereas Openness was
correlated only with verbal intelligence. Correlations with g were systematically related
to the correlations with its subcomponents: Intellect was correlated more strongly with g
than with either verbal or nonverbal intelligence alone, whereas Openness was correlated
more weakly with g than with verbal intelligence because of the lack of association
between Openness and nonverbal intelligence.
[Insert Table 4 about here.]
Regressions were performed to test the independent contributions of Intellect and
Openness to the three cognitive ability variables (Table 4). As predicted, only Intellect
was significantly associated with g and nonverbal intelligence, but both Intellect and
Openness predicted verbal intelligence independently. Both Intellect and Openness
contributed incrementally to the prediction of verbal intelligence, whereas only Intellect
contributed incrementally to the prediction of g and nonverbal intelligence.
Discussion
Correlations of the BFAS Openness and Intellect scales confirmed several
hypotheses regarding the associations of personality with cognitive ability. In keeping
with its inclusion of descriptors of intelligence and intellectual engagement, Intellect was
associated with g and with both verbal and nonverbal intelligence. Openness, which
describes engagement with sensory information and aesthetics, was associated with g in
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 14
zero-order correlations, but was not associated with g after controlling for Intellect. As
predicted, the only association of Openness with cognitive ability after controlling for
Intellect was with verbal intelligence. In multiple regression, Openness and Intellect
contributed about equally to verbal intelligence. Notably, results were very similar in two
samples that were very different demographically, suggesting that our findings are likely
to be robust.
The pattern of results in this study clarifies two puzzles that have been noted
regarding the relation of Openness/Intellect to intelligence (DeYoung, 2011). First, a
number of studies have found that Openness/Intellect is more strongly related to verbal
than nonverbal intelligence. Explanations for this phenomenon have often invoked the
problematic description of verbal intelligence as ―crystallized‖ and suggested that
Openness/Intellect reflects greater motivation to learn, leading to greater crystallized
intelligence. The current findings suggest another, simpler explanation:
Openness/Intellect is more strongly related to verbal than nonverbal intelligence because
both aspects of the domain are associated with verbal intelligence, whereas only Intellect
is associated with nonverbal intelligence. Although Intellect does reflect, in part,
intellectual engagement, this does not lead differentially to ability in the verbal domain;
the correlations of Intellect with verbal and nonverbal intelligence were very similar in
magnitude.
Second, several previous studies of NEO PI-R facet scales have suggested that
Openness is probably less strongly related to intelligence and particularly nonverbal
intelligence than is Intellect, but it was not clear whether any association of Openness
with intelligence was simply due to variance shared with Intellect. The present study
indicates that any zero-order association of Openness with g or nonverbal intelligence is
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 15
indeed probably due to variance shared with Intellect. However, Openness did predict
verbal intelligence even after controlling for Intellect, indicating that the association of
Openness with verbal intelligence cannot be explained by its association with Intellect.
An important question, therefore, is why Openness should be independently
associated with verbal intelligence. One possibility is that part of the specific cognitive
substrate of Openness contributes to verbal intelligence. Openness is associated with
implicit learning, the ability to learn patterns unconsciously, whereas Intellect is not
(Kaufman et al., 2010). Additionally, implicit learning is related to verbal (but not
nonverbal) intelligence, independently of g. Individuals high in Openness may have
greater verbal skill in part because they have more capacity for implicit learning of the
patterns of language.
The present results contribute to a program of research seeking to understand the
mechanisms underlying Intellect and Openness. In part, the demonstration of the
association between Intellect and intelligence simply serves as validation of Intellect as a
construct, given that Intellect encompasses descriptors of intelligence. Although ability
tests are more accurate than self-reports of intelligence (Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998), the
latter nonetheless reflect intelligence to a meaningful extent. Cognitive and brain
mechanisms that support intelligence, such as those associated with working memory, are
likely to be a crucial substrate of Intellect (DeYoung et al., 2009). In contrast,
mechanisms associated with perception and detection of patterns may important
components of the substrate of Openness (Kaufman et al., 2010). In addition to
mechanisms specific to Intellect or Openness, there must also be mechanisms that the two
traits share, one of which is likely to be a drive to explore information of all kinds. This
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 16
drive has been linked to the neurotransmitter dopamine (DeYoung et al., 2005; DeYoung
et al., 2011).
Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Intelligence
We formed no hypotheses regarding the associations of cognitive ability with
traits other than Openness and Intellect. It is worth noting, however, that traits in the
Neuroticism and Agreeableness domains showed significant correlations with cognitive
ability. With regard to Neuroticism, this was not unexpected because meta-analysis has
indicated a weak negative association with intelligence, probably due to test anxiety
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997).
The finding of an association of intelligence with the Compassion aspect of
Agreeableness is more novel and may begin to address one of the remaining puzzles in
the relation of intelligence to personality (DeYoung, 2011). Agreeableness is not
typically correlated with intelligence; however, measures of certain traits that would
usually be categorized within Agreeableness are correlated with intelligence. For
example, questionnaire measures of aggression are typically negatively correlated with
intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). Of more relevance to the present finding,
assessments of the ability to empathize are often correlated with intelligence. The largest
body of findings on this phenomenon is probably from the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), which comprises a battery of tasks like
identifying emotions in facial expressions or judging how best to manage others’
emotions in social situations, and which shows a correlation of about .3 with intelligence
(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004; Roberts, Schulze, & MacCann, 2008). This
association is typically stronger for verbal ability, just as it was for Compassion in the
present samples. Compassion includes items that describe empathy (e.g., ―Feel others’
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 17
emotions‖; ―Sympathize with others’ feelings‖), so the present findings using the BFAS
are consistent with previous findings using the MSCEIT. (Notably, associations of
Compassion with intelligence cannot be estimated from studies using the NEO PI-R
because that instrument does not include any facets that are good indicators of
Compassion separately from Politeness [DeYoung et al., 2007].)
It may be that the ability to empathize is facilitated by intelligence. However,
another possibility is that the ability to empathize is facilitated by Openness, and this
association may explain the correlation between Compassion and intelligence (especially
verbal intelligence). This hypothesis is likely because Compassion and Openness are
substantially correlated, r = .40 and .36 in the present samples. Consistent with this
hypothesis, post hoc analyses in both samples showed that Compassion remained
significantly related to verbal intelligence after controlling for Intellect, but not after
controlling for Openness. These findings suggest an important role for Openness in
empathy, which could be explored in future research.
Conclusion
The BFAS, an instrument which breaks down each of the Big Five personality
traits into two correlated aspects, successfully clarified the relations of personality to
cognitive ability. Although it has long been known that Openness/Intellect is the only Big
Five trait that is positively associated with intelligence, the meaning of this association
has remained unclear, both because of the possibility that it might be due specifically to
verbal (often presumed to be ―crystallized‖) intelligence, and because of lingering debate
about the conceptual relation of Openness/Intellect to intelligence (DeYoung, 2011).
Although descriptors of intelligence fall within Openness/Intellect, its most common
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 18
label, ―Openness to Experience,‖ does not seem to be closely related to intelligence
conceptually.
Parsing the Big Five at the aspect level allows recognition that intelligence has a
place in the Big Five, subsumed under Intellect, while acknowledging that Openness and
Intellect are indeed distinct (though related), and that Openness does not subsume
standard descriptors of intelligence. In keeping with this pattern, we found that Intellect
was independently associated with g and with both verbal and nonverbal intelligence
about equally. Additionally, however, Openness was independently associated with
verbal intelligence, a finding that suggests a potentially fruitful avenue for further
research. The association of Openness and verbal intelligence may be a function of
Openness’ association with implicit learning (Kaufman et al., 2010). The present study
demonstrates the utility of measuring Openness and Intellect as separate but related
constructs. Additionally, the demonstration of differential patterns of association for the
BFAS Openness and Intellect scales provides new evidence of their validity.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 19
References
Ackerman, P. L. & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests:
Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.
Ashton, M. C., Lee. K., Vernon, P. A., & Jang, K. L. (2000). Fluid intelligence,
crystallized intelligence, and the Openness/Intellect factor. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34, 197-207.
Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., & Gibson, G. J. (1997). Relationship between ability and
personality: Three hypotheses tested. Intelligence, 25, 4970.
Baker, T. J., & Bichsel, J. (2006). Personality predictors of intelligence: Differences
between young and cognitively healthy older adults. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 861-871.
Bates, T. C., & Shieles, A. (2003). Crystallized intelligence as a product of speed and
drive for experience: The relationship of inspection time and openness to g and
Gc. Intelligence, 31, 275287.
Beauducel, A., Liepmann, D., Felfe, J., & Nettelnstroth, W. (2007). The impact of
different measurement models for fluid and crystallized intelligence on the
correlation with personality traits. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 23, 71-78.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ceci, S. J. (1991). How much does school influence general intelligence and its cognitive
components: A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27,
703-722.
Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its
relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 547-552.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 20
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
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.
DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 11651180.
DeYoung, C. G. (2011). Intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 711737). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
DeYoung, C. G., Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., Gray, J. R., Eastman, M., & Grigorenko,
E. L. (2011). Sources of cognitive exploration: Genetic variation in the prefrontal
dopamine system predicts Openness/Intellect. Journal of Research in Personality,
45, 364-371.
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of Openness/Intellect:
Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality.
Journal of Personality, 73, 825-858.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10
aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-
896.
DeYoung, C. G., Shamosh, N. A., Green, A. E., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2009).
Intellect as distinct from Openness: Differences revealed by fMRI of working
memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 883-892.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 21
Feng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video games reduces gender
differences in spatial cognition. Psychological Science, 18, 850855.
Furnham, A., Dissou, G., Sloan, P., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and
intelligence in business people: A study of two personality and two intelligence
measures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 99-109.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R.,
& Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of
public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-
96.
Gray, J. R., & Thompson, P. M. (2004). Neurobiology of intelligence: Science and ethics.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 471-482.
Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American
Psychologist, 58, 78-80.
Holland, D. C., Dollinger, S. J., Holland, C. J., & MacDonald, D. A. (1995). The
relationship between psychometric intelligence and the five-factor model of
personality in a rehabilitation sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 7988.
Horn, J. L . & Cattell. R. B, (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and
crystallized general intelligences. Joumal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-
270.
Jaeggi, S.M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig,W. J. (2008). Improving fluid
intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 6829−6833.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big
Five trait taxonomy: History: measurement, and conceptual issue. In O. P. John,
R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds). Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (pp. 114-158). New York: Guilford Press.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 22
Johnson, J. A. (1994). Clarification of factor five with the help of the AB5C model.
European Journal of Personality, 8, 311-334.
Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2005a). The structure of human intelligence: It's
verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid crystallized. Intelligence,
33, 393-416.
Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2005b). Constructive replication of the visual
perceptual-image rotation model in Thurstone’s (1941) battery of 60 tests of
mental ability, Intelligence, 33, 417-430.
Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2007). Sex differences in mental abilities: g masks
the dimensions on which they lie. Intelligence, 35, 23-39.
Johnson, W., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., McGue, M., Segal, N. L., Tellegen, A., Keyes, M., &
Gottesman, I. I. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on the Verbal-
Perceptual-Image Rotation (VPR) model of the structure of mental abilities in the
Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Intelligence, 35, 542-562.
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jiménez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N.
J. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321340.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory,
findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 60, 197-215.
McCrae, R. R. (1993). Openness to Experience as a basic dimension of personality.
Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 13, 39-55.
Moody, D. E. (2009). Can intelligence be increased by training on a task of working
memory? Intelligence,37, 327-328.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 23
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personality predictors of
intelligence: A study using the NEO Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79-94.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2006). What facets of openness and
conscientiousness predict fluid intelligence score? Learning and Individual
Differences, 16, 3142.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Tsaousis, I. (2006). Is the relationship between intelligence
and trait neuroticism mediated by test anxiety? Personality and Individual
Differences, 40, 587597.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of
components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32, 396-402. Program available online:
http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~boconno2/nfactors.html
Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, M. S. M. (1998). Self-report measures of intelligence:
Are they useful as proxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality, 66, 525-554.
Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., MacCann, C. (2008). The measurement of emotional
intelligence: A decade of progress? In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, D. H. Saklofske
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, Volume 2. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Saucier, G. (1992). Openness versus intellect: Much ado about nothing? European
Journal of Personality, 6, 381-386.
Saucier, G. (1994). Trapnell versus the lexical factor: More ado about nothing? European
Journal of Personality, 8, 291-298.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 24
Tranter, L. J., & Koutstaal, W. (2008). Age and flexible thinking: An experimental
demonstration of the beneficial effects of increased cognitively stimulating
activity on fluid intelligence in healthy older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and
Cognition, 15, 184207.
Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS-III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX:
Harcourt Brace & Company.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 25
Author Note
This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (F32
MH077382) to Colin G. DeYoung, from the National Science Foundation (DRL
0644131) to Jeremy R. Gray, and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada to Jordan B. Peterson.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 26
Footnotes
1. Note that, in the NEO PI-R, the Openness/Intellect domain is labeled ―Openness to
Experience,‖ despite the fact that it contains a facet measuring Intellect rather than
Openness according to a previous factor analysis (DeYoung et al., 2007). In this article,
we distinguish between Openness‖ and Intellect facets of the NEO PI-R based on that
factor analysis, rather than labeling them all as facets of ―Openness to Experience.‖
2. None of these were students at Yale University; Yale students were excluded to avoid
skewing the distribution of intelligence scores in the sample. Importantly, this exclusion
did not lead to a truncated upper range of intelligence; estimated IQ in the sample without
Yale students ranged from 92 to 144. If 48 additional Yale students were included in the
sample, effect sizes were slightly attenuated, but results remained substantively the same.
The most notable difference in results was that, in regression, Openness only marginally
predicted verbal intelligence, β = .12, p = .08. However, if status as a Yale student was
entered as an additional covariate (dummy coded), Openness significantly predicted
verbal intelligence at a comparable level to that reported here, β = .19, p < .01.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 27
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS)
Sample 1 (N = 125)
Sample 2 (N = 189)
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Neuroticism
2.88
0.72
.90
2.59
0.68
Volatility
2.75
0.87
.89
2.55
0.78
Withdrawal
3.00
0.74
.80
2.63
0.72
Agreeableness
3.85
0.54
.83
3.77
0.51
Compassion
4.06
0.63
.86
4.06
0.60
Politeness
3.64
0.69
.77
3.48
0.64
Conscientiousness
3.20
0.59
.82
3.21
0.63
Industriousness
2.98
0.76
.82
3.25
0.72
Orderliness
3.41
0.63
.69
3.17
0.73
Extraversion
3.42
0.66
.89
3.67
0.56
Enthusiasm
3.57
0.73
.82
3.67
0.66
Assertiveness
3.27
0.78
.87
3.68
0.66
Openness/Intellect
3.58
0.52
.82
3.99
0.50
Intellect
3.45
0.72
.84
3.92
0.60
Openness
3.72
0.63
.71
4.07
0.62
Note. SD = standard deviation; = Cronbach’s
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 28
Table 2
Correlations and descriptive statistics for WAIS-III subtests in Sample 2
BD
MR
Voc
Sim
Block Design
Matrix Reasoning
.37
Vocabulary
.28
.35
Similarities
.23
.27
.55
Mean
12.40
12.67
14.61
12.85
SD
2.88
2.32
2.44
2.46
Note. N = 189. All correlations significant at p < .01.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 29
Table 3
Correlations among Measures of Cognitive Ability and BFAS
Sample 1 (N = 125)
Sample 2 (N = 189)
g
Nonverbal
Verbal
g
Nonverbal
Verbal
Neuroticism
-.15
-.12
-.12
-.12
-.17
-.03
Volatility
-.11
-.05
-.12
-.18
-.21
-.09
Withdrawal
-.17
-.18
-.09
-.02
-.08
.05
Agreeableness
.15
.04
.19
.19
.14
.18
Compassion
.19
.05
.24
.23
.17
.21
Politeness
.06
.01
.08
.10
.07
.09
Conscientiousness
-.02
.02
-.04
-.07
.02
-.14
Industriousness
-.01
.03
-.04
-.05
.03
-.12
Orderliness
-.02
.00
-.03
-.07
.00
-.12
Extraversion
.14
.08
.14
.02
.07
-.04
Enthusiasm
.13
.04
.16
.02
.04
-.01
Assertiveness
.12
.11
.08
.01
.08
-.06
Openness/Intellect
.37
.18
.40
.31
.16
.35
Intellect
.35
.25
.30
.32
.24
.29
Openness
.23
.03
.32
.19
.03
.29
Note: All correlations greater than .17 are significant at p < .05 in Sample 1, and all
correlations greater than .15 are significant at p < .05 in Sample 2.
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 30
Table 4.
Regressions of Cognitive Abilities on Intellect and Openness.
Criterion
Predictors
β
t
R
ΔR
Sample 1
g
.38**
Intellect
.31
3.55
**
.14**
Openness
.15
1.73
.03
Nonverbal
.25*
Intellect
.26
2.81
**
.22**
Openness
-.04
-0.43
.00
Verbal
.39**
Intellect
.23
2.68
**
.07**
Openness
.26
2.97
**
.09**
Sample 2
g
.33**
Intellect
.29
3.88
**
.14**
Openness
.09
1.16
.01
Nonverbal
.25**
Intellect
.26
3.42
**
.21**
Openness
-.06
-0.81
.01
Verbal
.35**
Intellect
.22
2.96
**
.07**
Openness
.21
2.79
**
.06**
*p < .05; **p < .01
Openness/Intellect and Cognitive Ability 31
Note. Sample 1 N = 125 ; Sample 2 N = 189 ; ΔR = incremental R for each predictor
when entered after the other predictor.
... Higgins, 2005;DeYoung, Quilty, Peterson, & Gray, 2014;Nusbaum, & Silvia, 2011). Openness to new experiences combines creativity, curiosity, cultural taste, achievement orientation, and desire to be knowledgeable. ...
... In other words, this trait involves cultural and mental curiosity terms. At this point, 'culture' means valuing art and science, and being sensitive to social values by using a liberal point of view.'Intellect' is defined as learning and analyzing causation(DeYoung et al., 2014). ...
Thesis
Full-text available
The personality congruence of supervisors and subordinates and its influence on work outcomes is a relatively new topic in social and behavioral sciences. Most well-known personality theory is Big Five that includes openness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion and agreeableness traits. LMX theory focuses on the mutual relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate. There is a gap in the literature regarding the mediating role of LMX perceptions of subordinates on the relationship between personality congruence of supervisors and subordinates and affective commitment (AC). The purpose of this cross-sectional design was first to explore the direct relationship between supervisors and subordinates personality congruence and AC of subordinates. The second purpose of this study was to explore the role of LMX as a mediator between the personality congruence of supervisors and subordinates and AC of the subordinates. A cluster sampling method was used to gather 400 supervisorsubordinate dyads from 3 technopolises in Ankara, who completed self-reported questionnaires. A technopolis is a technology science park. Polynomial regression analysis was conducted to measure the congruence level of dyads’ personality traits and structural equation modeling was used to analyze the mediating effect of LMX. Results revealed that, LMX has no mediating effect on personality congruence and AC. The results also revealed that there is a significant relation between the agreeableness congruence of supervisors and subordinates, and AC. This information can be used by organizations by pairing up agreeable dyad members to increase affective commitment. The findings of this study may create positive social change by promoting optimum functioning organizations that have committed employees which would affect the society and economy in a positive way.
... In contrast to openness, higher intellect predicted more societal-oriented assumptions about genetic enhancement. Here, consequences for the society might be weightier than in other scenarios (i.e. gene technology opens many new possibilities but is not as unrealistic as mind uploading) and evaluating these consequences might be based on high cognitive ability, which is related to the trait intellect (e.g., DeYoung et al., 2014). While we observed interesting (but small) relationships of openness and intellect with assumptions about human enhancement, it must be noted that we did not assess any other Big 5 factors. ...
Article
Full-text available
With the rise of new technologies, also human enhancement is widely discussed. Especially the philosophical movement “transhumanism” urges for creating “better humans” by applying different enhancement methods, namely: pharmacological, current-based, and genetic enhancement as well as mind uploading. While the first three aim at enhancing human characteristics, mind uploading promises immortality by uploading one’s brain onto an external storage medium. In the present study, we adapted the method of divergent thinking tasks to assess individuals’ assumptions about enhancement methods. These were rated regarding their negativity/positivity and societal-/individual-orientation and then tested whether they are predicted by basic human values and selected personality traits. While individuals’ values were not related to their assumptions about enhancement, openness predicted more negative assumptions about most enhancement methods, and a higher intellect predicted more societal-oriented assumptions about genetic enhancement. Furthermore, higher grandiose narcissism predicted more negative assumptions about current-based enhancement and higher psychopathic tendencies predicted more positive assumptions about genetic enhancement. Additionally, higher Machiavellianism predicted more individual-oriented assumptions about pharmacological and current-based enhancement. However, all relationships were of small effect size. We urge for further psychological research in this increasingly relevant field.
... For openness, we found a slightly different pattern, where the associations with grades revealed more discrepancies when competencies were controlled for versus were not controlled for. Illustrating parallels between openness and cognitive abilities (DeYoung et al. 2014;Ziegler et al. 2012), this suggests that the openness-grade associations may also operate through competence gains. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Big Five personality traits are established predictors of school grades. However, the mechanisms underlying these associations are not yet well understood. Effects of personality on grades might arise because behavioral tendencies facilitate learning and increase subject-specific competencies. Alternatively, personality effects on grades might be independent of cognitive competencies and reflect otherwise valued behaviors or teachers’ grading practices. In the current study, we drew on large-scale data of 7th and 9th graders in Germany to explore the extent to which personality predicted grades even after accounting for competencies. Controlling for competencies and other key covariates, we cross-sectionally and longitudinally examined personality–grade associations across different school subjects, grade levels, and school types. Results indicate that the predictive power of personality is largely independent of subject-specific and general cognitive competencies. The largest effects emerged for conscientiousness. For openness, associations with grades partly overlapped with competencies, suggesting that openness may operate by fostering competencies. Overall, our results suggest that the associations between personality and grades unfold mostly independently of course mastery. This finding underlines the socioemotional value of personality in the classroom and encourages a more fine-grained view of the interplay between personality, competencies, classroom behavior, and grades.
... First, open people are creative, philosophical, and analytical. They find joy in thinking thoroughly about ideas and complex issues (DeYoung et al., 2014;Goldberg, 1990;McCrae & Costa, 1997). People with such characteristics should be well-equipped and predisposed to construe political matters in abstract and ideational terms and less likely to stress particularistic considerations. ...
Article
Full-text available
It is still debated whether people are driven by self-interest or ideological motives when judging redistributive policies of the welfare state. Drawing on personality research, we suggest that both material and ideational factors matter but not for the same kinds of individuals. Specifically, we theorize that the Big Five personality trait openness to experience increases the weight put on general ideological principles and reduces the importance of private economic concerns, as this trait is related to creative and philosophical thinking and uncertainty tolerance. To test this proposition, we use Danish survey panel data linked to registry data on income. Consistent with the argument, we find that higher openness promotes an ideological evaluation of income redistribution and depresses the influence of material self-interest as measured by income. Among open individuals, attitudes toward redistribution reflect left–right positions but are unrelated to personal income fluctuations. People who are close-minded, on the other hand, are less likely to be ideological and do base their support for redistribution on whether their income is rising or falling. Similar, although not identical, results are obtained using U.S. data. The findings have implications for our understanding of citizens’ motivations to support welfare policies and political opinion formation more broadly.
Article
Personality refers to a set of relatively stable psychological characteristics of individuals and has been associated with intelligence. It is well known that the thalamus plays an important role in cognitive processes and personality traits, but the relationship between personality traits, thalamic function, and intelligence has rarely been directly explored. Hence, we investigated the relationship between Eysenck personality traits, resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) of the thalamus, and intelligence in a large sample of healthy adults (N = 176). We found that the trait of psychoticism was negatively associated with intelligence. The high intelligence group showed significantly lower psychoticism and demonstrated enhanced thalamic connectivity to the amygdala, inferior parietal lobules, pallidum, medial superior/middle frontal gyrus, and precuneus. Furthermore, a mediation analysis indicated that the FC between the left thalamus and left amygdala significantly mediated the correlation between psychoticism and full IQ (FIQ). These findings suggest that intelligent people may be less prone to psychoticism. Meanwhile, thalamic rsFC may reflect individual differences in intelligence and play a key role in the relationship between personality traits and intellectual abilities.
Article
Consensual facet structures help to unify a highly fractured personality literature, but mask information obtained from unique personality facets assessed by individual personality inventories. The current study identifies the consensual and unique facets of neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness based on analyses of five widely used personality inventories (Disinhibition Inventory-I [DIS-I], Faceted Inventory for the Five-Factor model [FI-FFM], HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised [HEXACO-PI-R], NEO Personality Inventory-3 [NEO-PI-3], and Temperament and Affectivity Inventory [TAI]) in a community sample ( N = 440). Factor analyses revealed that neuroticism consisted of three consensual facets (distress/depression, anger, and sentimental anxiety) and four unique facets (shyness, regret/self-doubt, lassitude, and distractibility); conscientiousness consisted solely of four consensual facets (achievement striving, order, attentiveness, and responsibility); and agreeableness consisted solely of four consensual facets (prosociality, anger, venturesomeness, and trust). Regression analyses indicated that unique neuroticism facets predicted significant incremental variance across a range of psychological disorders. These results have significant implications for how neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness should be modeled at the lower order level in psychopathology research.
Article
Purpose Product trials are an effective way to influence consumer attitudes. While research has established several factors that influence whether consumers will try a product or not, it is less understood how marketers can optimize the trial experience itself. The purpose of this paper is to explore flow as an optimal state and the factors that give rise to it during a product trail. Design/methodology/approach This research consists of three experimental studies in which people trial new music. This paper explores the ability of curiosity to optimize consumers’ flow experience during the trial and their attitudes toward the trialed product. This paper manipulates curiosity before the trial using information about the music (Study 1) and music previews (Study 3) and also demonstrates that curiosity is naturally elevated among those high in openness to experience (Study 2). Findings The results demonstrate that curiosity before a product trial fosters an optimal experience during the trial in the form of flow states, defined as an enjoyable state of full engagement, which in turn mediates more positive attitudes toward the trialed product. This paper demonstrates that curiosity can be evoked using product information or a preview of the content and can vary based on individual differences in openness to experience. The relationship between curiosity and flow is moderated by the valence of the information that is used to elicit curiosity, such that negative-valence information thwarts the relationship. Research limitations/implications While the studies conducted by the authors focus on the positive influence of curiosity in the trial of music, the effects may be different for other products. These studies are also limited to two different manipulations of curiosity. Practical implications This research has implications for marketers, as it demonstrates the relevance of flow and how to enable it in product trials to optimize effectiveness. The manipulations also demonstrate how to manage the amount of information that is given to consumers before they trial a product. Originality/value This research reveals that flow states optimize the product trial experience. This research also advances the understanding of the relationship between curiosity and flow by moderating their relationship with the valence of information that elicits curiosity. The findings also broaden the relevance of curiosity and flow in marketing by demonstrating their benefits within product trials.
Article
Full-text available
The growing trend of introducing robots into employees’ work lives has become increasingly salient during the global COVID‐19 pandemic. In light of this pandemic, it is likely that organizational decision‐makers are seeing value in coupling employees with robots for both efficiency‐ and health‐related reasons. An unintended consequence of this coupling, however, may be an increased level of work routinization and standardization. We draw primarily from the model of passion decay from the relationship and clinical psychology literature to develop theory and test a model arguing that passion decays as employees increasingly interact with robots for their work activities. We demonstrate that this passion decay leads to an increase of withdrawal behavior from both the domains of work and family. Drawing further from the model of passion decay, we reveal that employees higher in openness to experience are less likely to suffer from passion decay upon more frequent interactions with robots in the course of work. Across a multi‐source, multi‐wave field study conducted in Hong Kong (Study 1) and a simulation‐based experiment conducted in the United States (Study 2), our hypotheses received support. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Article
Drawing from recognition‐based categorization and self‐fulfilling prophecy theory, the present study investigates antecedents and consequences of leaders’ implicit followership theories (LIFTs). Using latent variable modelling, in a sample of 230 leader‐follower dyads, we support our hypotheses that follower personality and in‐role behaviour influence LIFTs which, in turn, affect follower effort and performance. Specifically, we found that general factor of personality (GFP), including agreeableness, conscientiousness, extroversion, intellect, and emotional stability, positively predicted positive LIFTs and negatively predicted negative LIFTs. Furthermore, personality had an indirect effect on positive and negative LIFTs via active engagement and independent thinking behaviours respectively. With respect to outcomes, positive LIFTs indirectly impacted follower performance via effort. Contrary to our predictions, negative LIFTs also indirectly impacted follower performance via effort, despite showing a negative direct relationship with performance. Our comprehensive model reveals new insights on LIFTs and highlights the importance of educating both leaders and followers about LIFTs. Managers should be cognizant of the follower traits and behaviours that influence their expectations of followers and be mindful of the potential harm done by negative expectations. Followers should be mindful of the way they engage with their leaders, especially when it comes to independent thinking behaviours which may be construed as rude or overly critical. Finally, organizations should encourage leaders and followers to discuss implicit expectations as this may resolve misinterpretations of behaviour and negative attributions of performance.
Article
Full-text available
Empirical data suggest that there is at most a very small sex difference in general mental ability, but men clearly perform better on visuospatial tasks while women clearly perform better on tests of verbal usage and perceptual speed. In this study, we integrated these overall findings with predictions based on the Verbal–Perceptual–Rotation (VPR) model ([Johnson, W., and Bouchard, T. J. (2005a). Constructive replication of the visual–perceptual–image rotation (VPR) model in Thurstone's (1941) battery of 60 tests of mental ability. Intelligence, 33, 417–430.; Johnson, W., and Bouchard, T. J. (2005b). The structure of human intelligence: It's verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence, 33. 393–416.]) of the structure of mental abilities. We examined the structure of abilities after removing the effects of general intelligence, identifying three underlying dimensions termed rotation–verbal, focus–diffusion, and memory. Substantial sex differences appeared to lie along all three dimensions, with men more likely to be positioned towards the rotation and focus poles of those dimensions, and women displaying generally greater memory. At the level of specific ability tests, there were greater sex differences in residual than full test scores, providing evidence that general intelligence serves as an all-purpose problem solving ability that masks sex differences in more specialized abilities. The residual ability factors we identified showed strong genetic influences comparable to those for full abilities, indicating that the residual abilities have some basis in brain structure and function.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
Correlations between single-item self-reports of intelligence and IQ scores are rather low (.20-.25) in college samples. The literature suggested that self-reports could be improved by three strategies: (1) aggregation, (2) item weighting, and (3) use of indirect, rather than direct, questions. To evaluate these strategies, we compared the validity of aggregated and unaggregated versions of direct measures with four indirect measures (Gough's Intellectual efficiency scale, Hogan's Intellect composite scale, Sternberg's Behavior Check List, and Trapnell's Smart scale). All measures were administered to two large samples of undergraduates (Ns = 310, 326), who also took an IQ test. Although results showed some success for both direct and indirect measures, the failure of their validities to exceed .30 impugns their utility as IQ proxies in competitive college samples. The content of the most valid items referred to global mental abilities or reading involvement. Aggregation benefited indirect more than direct measures, but prototype-weighting contributed little.
Article
Full-text available
Correlations between single-item self-reports of intelligence and IQ scores are rather low (.20–.25) in college samples. The literature suggested that self-reports could be improved by three strategies: (1) aggregation, (2)item weighting, and (3) use of indirect, rather than direct, questions. To evaluate these strategies, we compared the validity of aggregated and unaggregated versions of direct measures with four indirect measures (Gough’s Intellectual efficiency scale, Hogan’s Intellect composite scale, Sternberg’s Behavior Check List, and Trapnell’s Smart scale). All measures were administered to two large samples of undergraduates (Ns = 310, 326), who also took an IQ test. Although results showed some success for both direct and indirect measures, the failure of their validities to exceed .30 impugns their utility as IQ proxies in competitive college samples. The content of the most valid items referred to global mental abilities or reading involvement. Aggregation benefited indirect more than direct measures, but prototype-weighting contributed little.
Article
This is a review of the relationship between schooling, IQ, and the cognitive processes presumed to underpin IQ. The data suggest that much of the causal pathway between IQ and schooling points in the direction of the importance of the quantity of schooling one attains (highest grade successfully completed). Schooling fosters the development of cognitive processes that underpin performance on most IQ tests. In western nations, schooling conveys this influence on IQ and cognition through practices that appear unrelated to systematic variation in quality of schools. If correct, this could have implications for the meaning one attaches to IQ in screening and prediction as well as for efforts to influence the development of IQ through changes in schooling practices.
Article
Extraversion has two central characteristics: (1) interpersonal engagement, which consists of affiliation (enjoying and valuing close interpersonal bonds, being warm and affectionate) and agency (being socially dominant, enjoying leadership roles, being assertive, being exhibitionistic, and having a sense of potency in accomplishing goals) and (2) impulsivity, which emerges from the interaction of extraversion and a second, independent trait (constraint). Agency is a more general motivational disposition that includes dominance, ambition, mastery, efficacy, and achievement. Positive affect (a combination of positive feelings and motivation) is closely associated with extraversion. Extraversion is accordingly based on positive incentive motivation. Parallels between extraversion (particularly its agency component) and a mammalian behavioral approach system based on positive incentive motivation implicate a neuroanatomical network and modulatory neurotransmitters in the processing of incentive motivation. A corticolimbic-striatal-thalamic network (1) integrates the salient incentive context in the medial orbital cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus; (2) encodes the intensity of incentive stimuli in a motive circuit composed of the nucleus accumbens, ventral pallidum, and ventral tegmental area dopamine projection system; and (3) creates an incentive motivational state that can be transmitted to the motor system. Individual differences in the functioning of this network arise from functional variation in the Ventral tegmental area dopamine projections, which are directly involved in coding the intensity of incentive motivation. The animal evidence suggests that there are three neurodevelopmental sources of individual differences in dopamine: genetic, "experience-expectant," and "experience-dependent." Individual differences in dopamine promote variation in the heterosynaptic plasticity that enhances the connection between incentive con text and incentive motivation and behavior. Our psychobiological threshold model explains the effects of individual differences in dopamine transmission on behavior, and their relation to personality traits is discussed.