Intelligence, Personality, and Interests: Evidence for Overlapping Traits

Abstract

The authors review the development of the modern paradigm for intelligence assessment and application and consider the differentiation between intelligence-as-maximal performance and intelligence-as-typical performance. They review theories of intelligence, personality, and interest as a means to establish potential overlap. Consideration of intelligence-as-typical performance provides a basis for evaluation of intelligence–personality and intelligence–interest relations. Evaluation of relations among personality constructs, vocational interests, and intellectual abilities provides evidence for communality across the domains of personality of J. L. Holland's (1959) model of vocational interests. The authors provide an extensive meta-analysis of personality–intellectual ability correlations, and a review of interest–intellectual ability associations. They identify 4 trait complexes: social, clerical/conventional, science/math, and intellectual/cultural.

Full text

Psychological
Bulletin
1997, Vol.
121,
No. 2,
219-245
Copyright
1997
by the
American
Psychological
Association,
Inc.
0033-2909/97/$3.00
Intelligence,
Personality,
and
Interests:
Evidence
for
Overlapping
Traits
Phillip
L.
Ackerman
and
Eric
D.
Heggestad
University
of
Minnesota,
Twin
Cities
The
authors
review
the
development
of the
modern
paradigm
for
intelligence
assessment
and
applica-
tion
and
consider
the
differentiation
between
intelligence-as-maximal
performance
and
intelligence-
as-typical
performance.
They
review
theories
of
intelligence,
personality,
and
interest
as a
means
to
establish
potential
overlap.
Consideration
of
intelligence-as-typical
performance
provides
a
basis
for
evaluation
of
intelligence-personality
and
intelligence-interest
relations.
Evaluation
of
relations
among
personality
constructs,
vocational
interests,
and
intellectual
abilities
provides
evidence
for
communality
across
the
domains
of
personality
of J. L.
Holland's
(1959)
model
of
vocational
inter-
ests.
The
authors
provide
an
extensive
meta-analysis
of
personality-intellectual
ability
correlations,
and
a
review
of
interest-intellectual
ability
associations.
They
identify
4
trait
complexes:
social,
clerical/conventional,
science/math,
and
intellectual/cultural.
In
this article,
we
briefly
review theoretical approaches
to
intellect,
personality,
and
interests that make contact
across
these
seemingly
disparate
domains.
We
also review
the
empirical evi-
dence
and
theoretical arguments
for an
approach
to
adult intel-
lect that goes beyond
the
traditional paradigm.
The
review
first
focuses
on the
description
of the
traditional paradigm
for
intelli-
gence assessment
of
children.
We
next
consider
the
extension
of
the
paradigm
to
adult
intellectual assessment. From this
foun-
dation,
we
review
a
separation
of the
constructs
of
inteUigence-
as-maximal
performance
and
intelligence-as-typical perfor-
mance.
In an
attempt
to
bridge
the
separation
of
maximal
and
typical performance,
we
review
the
literature
on the
commonal-
ity
among personality constructs
and
intellectual abilities
in
adults
and
provide
a set of
meta-analytic
results.
We
also review
the
literature
on the
relations between interest constructs
and
intellectual abilities
in
adults.
Intelligence
Testing
as a
Paradigm
Assessment
of
Intelligence
of
Children
A
comprehensive review
of the
early history
of
intelligence
testing
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this article (although
see an
Phillip
L.
Ackerman
and
Eric
D.
Heggestad,
Department
of
Psychol-
ogy,
University
of
Minnesota,
Twin
Cities.
This
research
was
partially
supported
by
U.S.
Air
Force
Office
of
Scientific
Research
Grant
F49620-93-1-0206.
Phillip
L.
Ackerman
would
like
to
gratefully
acknowledge
early
dis-
cussions
and
correspondence
with
J. B.
Carroll,
L. 3.
Cronbach,
C.
Hert-
zog,
and
F.
L.
Schmidt
about
some
of the
ideas
contained
in
this
article.
We
thank
A. T.
Church
for
providing
raw
correlations
from
his
1994
article,
"Relating
the
Tellegen
and
Five-Factor
Models
of
Personality
Structure.''
We
also
thank
A.
Tellegen
for
several
productive
discussions
on the
structure
of
personality
and for his
help
in
sorting
personality
scales
into
trait
classes.
We
also
thank
M.
Goff
for
collecting
and re-
viewing
many
of the
studies
used
in the
personality-intelligence
meta-
analysis.
Correspondence
concerning
this
article
should
be
addressed
to
Phillip
L.
Ackerman,
Department
of
Psychology,
University
of
Minnesota,
N218
Elliott
Hall,
75
East
River
Road,
Minneapolis,
Minnesota
55455.
Elec-
tronic
mail
may be
sent
via
Internet
to
ackerman@maroon.tc.umn.edu.
extensive review
by
Peterson,
1925).
However, while there were
many
earlier instances
of
psychologists making
use of
mental
tests
(e.g.,
J.
McK.
Cattell,
1890;
Gallon,
1883/1928),
the be-
ginnings
of the
modern paradigm
for
intelligence testing
can be
identified
in two of
Binet
and
Simon's
(1905/1961,
1908/1961)
classic
articles. They described
a set of
higher order mental tests
that could
be
administered
to
children
of
various ages
in an
effort
to
predict academic success
or
failure
(e.g.,
see the
abridged translation reprinted
by
lenkins
&
Paterson
in
Binet
&
Simon,
1908/1961;
also
see the
translation
by
Town
in
Binet
&
Simon,
1911/1915).
The
term paradigm
is too
eagerly applied
and
often
overused
in
psychology,
but the
kind
of
mental testing
proceduralized
by
Binet
and
Simon
(1905/1961,
1908/1961)
and
their followers
readily meets many
of the
classificatory
requirements
for the
existence
of
a
scientific
paradigm (Kuhn, 1970). Binet
and
Simon
described
the
type
of
procedures that allow assessment
of
intelligence, specifically they distinguished between three
different
methods: medical, which focuses
on
physiology
and
pathology;
pedagogical,
which determines intelligence
on the
basis
of the
examinee's knowledge;
and
psychological, which
makes
direct
observations
of
intelligence
(as
translated
by
Kite
in
Binet
&
Simon,
1908/1961).
Binet
and
Simon
(1905/1961,
1908/1961) argued that they
wished
to
separate
"natural
intelligence
from
instruction"
by
"disregarding,
in so far as
possible,
the
degree
of
instruction
which
the
subject
possesses"
(as
translated
by
Kite
in
Binet
&
Simon,
1908/1961,
p.
93). That
is,
Binet
and
Simon
attempted
to
provide
an
estimate
of
individual differences
in
intellectual
ability, which was,
to a
great
degree,
separated
from
influences
of
experience, social privilege,
and
other confounds
of
socioeco-
nomic
status. Binet
and
Simon provided cogent arguments
for
the
psychological method over
the
pedagogical method
to
assess
school
children's
intelligence.
In
an
earlier article, Binet
and
Simon
(1896,
as
cited
by
Carroll, 1993) considered
the use of a
wide variety
of
tests,
such
as
simple
psychophysical
procedures (like those
of
Gallon,
1883/1928;
and J.
McK. Cattell,
1890),
but
ultimately rejected
those
in
favor
of
tests
of
higher mental processes, which
had
219
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.