Intelligence and personality

Last updated

Intelligence and personality have traditionally been studied as separate entities in psychology, but more recent work has increasingly challenged this view. An increasing number of studies have recently explored the relationship between intelligence and personality, in particular the Big Five personality traits.

Contents

General relationship

Intelligence and personality have some common features; for example, they both follow a relatively stable pattern throughout the whole of one’s life, and are to some degree genetically determined. [1] [2] In addition, they are both significant predictors of various outcomes, such as educational achievement, occupational performance, and health. [3] [4] [5] [6] The traditional view in psychology, which was that personality and intelligence should be studied as strictly separate entities, has come under scrutiny in light of modern personality research. [7]

Historically, psychologists have drawn a hard distinction between intelligence and personality, arguing that intelligence is a cognitive trait while personality is non-cognitive. However, modern psychologists argue that intelligence and personality are intertwined, noting that personality traits tend to be related to specific cognitive patterns. For example, neuroticism is a personality trait that is related to rumination and compulsive thinking about possible threats. [8] Similarly, agreeableness is a personality trait that is related to the consideration of others' mental states. [9] The finding that IQ predicts work performance, academic achievement, and health might also point to a link between intelligence and personality, or else be grounds for further research into their relationship. [10] [11]

In considering the ties between intelligence and personality, it may be worth noting that they are typically not tested in the same way. Intelligence is assessed using ability tests (such as IQ tests), whereas personality is assessed using questionnaires. It has been suggested that intelligence should reflect an individual's maximal performance, while personality should reflect their typical behaviour. [12]

By personality trait

Openness

Openness shows the strongest positive relationship with g (general intelligence) among the Big Five personality traits. The main meta-analytic estimates of correlations have ranged from .17 to .23. [13] [14] [15] Individuals with a high level of openness enjoy the experience of learning and prefer an intellectually stimulating environment. Meta-analytic research shows that openness is more strongly related to crystallized intelligence (r = .25) than with fluid intelligence (r = .17). [14]

Some psychologists have recently pointed out that previous instruments used to measure openness actually assessed two distinctive aspects. The first is intellect, which reflects intellectual engagement and perceived intelligence and is marked by ideas, while the second is emotion, which reflects the artistic and contemplative qualities related to being engaged in sensation and perception and is marked by fantasy, aesthetics, feelings and actions. [16] Intelligence is more strongly related to intellectual engagement than with interest in aesthetics and fantasy. [14] On this basis, intellect was found to be associated with the neural system of the working memory, which is related to g, whereas openness was not. [17] In addition, according to a study of genetic behaviour, intellect is genetically closer to intelligence than openness. [18]

Neuroticism

Neuroticism has a meaningful negative correlation with intelligence. The main large meta-analyses have obtained correlations around r = −.09. [13] [14] Debate exists about the extent to which the correlation reflects a substantive relationship or issues with measurement. Researchers have noted that neuroticism is correlated with test anxiety, [19] [20] which refers to the psychological distress experienced by individuals prior to, or during, an evaluative situation. [21] As such, some researchers have argued that neuroticism leads to test anxiety and under performance on cognitive tests. However, others researchers have argued that test anxiety is mostly incidental and caused by neuroticism, contextual pressures, and lower cognitive ability. [14] [22]

According to the results of a longitudinal study conducted by Gow et al., (2005), neuroticism influences an age-related decline in intelligence and there is a small negative correlation between neuroticism and a change in the level of IQ (r = −.18). [23] Although it is still debatable if neuroticism reduces general intelligence, this study provided some valuable evidence and a direction for research. In addition, some interaction between intelligence and neuroticism has been found. Individuals with a high level of neuroticism demonstrated a poor performance, health, and adjustment only if they had a low level of intelligence. [24] Therefore, intelligence may act as a buffer against the negative effects of neuroticism in individuals.

Conscientiousness

The association between conscientiousness and intelligence is complex and uncertain. Some researchers theorize that people with lower levels of intelligence compensate for their lower level of cognitive ability by being more structured and effortful. [25] While some studies have obtained negative correlations, [6] [25] [26] [13] [27] others have not. [28] [29] In particular, a meta-analysis of 214 studies (n = 120,885) obtained a correlation of r = −.02. [14] A meta-analysis of facet-level correlations suggested that preference for order and self-discipline may have a small negative correlation whereas conscientiousness facets related to competence have a small positive correlation with intelligence. [14]

Furthermore, some interaction has been found between conscientiousness and intelligence. Conscientiousness has been found to be a stronger predictor of safety behaviour in individuals with a low level of intelligence than in those with a high level. [30] This interaction may also be found in educational and occupational settings in future studies. Therefore, relatively speaking, an increase in either conscientiousness or intelligence may compensate for a deficiency in the other.

Extraversion

Most meta-analyses have found no correlation between overall extraversion and intelligence. [14] [15] [13] There is some meta-analytic evidence to suggest that aspects of extraversion related to assertiveness may be slightly positively related to intelligence whereas aspects related to sociability may be slightly negatively related to intelligence. [31] [14]

There are some moderating variables in the relationship between extraversion and g including differences in the assessment instruments and samples’ age and sensory stimulation; for example, no meaningful correlation was found between extraversion and intelligence in the samples of children. [32] [33] Furthermore, Bates and Rock (2004) used Raven’s matrices and found that extraverts performed better than introverts with increasing auditory stimulation, [34] whereas introverts performed best in silence. This result is consistent with that of Revelle et al. (1976). [35]

Agreeableness

Meta-analytic research suggests that agreeableness and intelligence are uncorrelated. [29] [13] [14] However, some components of agreeableness have been found to be related to intelligence. For example, aggression is negatively associated with intelligence (r is around −.20) [29] [36] [37] because unintelligent people may experience more frustration, which may lead to aggression [38] and aggression and intelligence may share some biological factors. [39] In addition, emotional perception and emotional facilitation, which are also components of agreeableness, have been found to be significantly correlated with intelligence. [40] [41] This may be because emotional perception and emotional facilitation are components of emotional intelligence and some researchers have found that emotional intelligence is a Second-Stratum Factor of g. [42] Similarly, meta-analysis suggests that the related trait of honesty-humility is also uncorrelated with intelligence. [14]

Related Research Articles

Emotional intelligence (EI) is defined as the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions. People with high emotional intelligence can recognize their own emotions and those of others, use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, and adjust emotions to adapt to environments.

Human intelligence is the intellectual capability of humans, which is marked by complex cognitive feats and high levels of motivation and self-awareness. Using their intelligence, humans are able to learn, form concepts, understand, and apply logic and reason. Human intelligence is also thought to encompass their capacities to recognize patterns, plan, innovate, solve problems, make decisions, retain information, and use language to communicate.

Personality is any person's collection of interrelated behavioral, cognitive and emotional patterns that comprise a person’s unique adjustment to life. These interrelated patterns are relatively stable, but can change over long time periods.

The g factor is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test, and composite scores based on many tests are frequently regarded as estimates of individuals' standing on the g factor. The terms IQ, general intelligence, general cognitive ability, general mental ability, and simply intelligence are often used interchangeably to refer to this common core shared by cognitive tests. However, the g factor itself is a mathematical construct indicating the level of observed correlation between cognitive tasks. The measured value of this construct depends on the cognitive tasks that are used, and little is known about the underlying causes of the observed correlations.

In psychology, trait theory is an approach to the study of human personality. Trait theorists are primarily interested in the measurement of traits, which can be defined as habitual patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion. According to this perspective, traits are aspects of personality that are relatively stable over time, differ across individuals, are relatively consistent over situations, and influence behaviour. Traits are in contrast to states, which are more transitory dispositions.

Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being responsible, careful or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They tend to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. Conscientiousness manifests in characteristic behaviors such as being neat, systematic, careful, thorough, and deliberate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Big Five personality traits</span> Personality model consisting of five broad dimensions

The Big Five personality traits, sometimes known as "the five-factor model of personality" or "OCEAN model", are a grouping of five unique characteristics used to study personality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">General knowledge</span> Type of information

General knowledge is information that has been accumulated over time through various media and sources. It excludes specialized learning that can only be obtained with extensive training and information confined to a single medium. General knowledge is an essential component of crystallized intelligence. It is strongly associated with general intelligence and with openness to experience.

Personality development encompasses the dynamic construction and deconstruction of integrative characteristics that distinguish an individual in terms of interpersonal behavioral traits. Personality development is ever-changing and subject to contextual factors and life-altering experiences. Personality development is also dimensional in description and subjective in nature. That is, personality development can be seen as a continuum varying in degrees of intensity and change. It is subjective in nature because its conceptualization is rooted in social norms of expected behavior, self-expression, and personal growth. The dominant viewpoint in personality psychology indicates that personality emerges early and continues to develop across one's lifespan. Adult personality traits are believed to have a basis in infant temperament, meaning that individual differences in disposition and behavior appear early in life, potentially before language of conscious self-representation develop. The Five Factor Model of personality maps onto the dimensions of childhood temperament. This suggests that individual differences in levels of the corresponding personality traits are present from young ages.

Neuroticism is a personality trait associated with negative emotions. It is one of the Big Five traits. Individuals with high scores on neuroticism are more likely than average to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, pessimism, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness. Such people are thought to respond worse to stressors and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations, such as minor frustrations, as appearing hopelessly difficult. Their behavioral responses may include procrastination, substance use, and other maladaptive behaviors, which may aid in relieving negative emotions and generating positive ones.

Openness to experience is one of the domains which are used to describe human personality in the Five Factor Model. Openness involves six facets, or dimensions: active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety (adventurousness), intellectual curiosity, and challenging authority. A great deal of psychometric research has demonstrated that these facets or qualities are significantly correlated. Thus, openness can be viewed as a global personality trait consisting of a set of specific traits, habits, and tendencies that cluster together.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affective events theory</span> Psychological model

Affective events theory (AET) is an industrial and organizational psychology model developed by organizational psychologists Howard M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano to explain how emotions and moods influence job performance and job satisfaction. The model explains the linkages between employees' internal influences and their reactions to incidents that occur in their work environment that affect their performance, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The theory proposes that affective work behaviors are explained by employee mood and emotions, while cognitive-based behaviors are the best predictors of job satisfaction. The theory proposes that positive-inducing as well as negative-inducing emotional incidents at work are distinguishable and have a significant psychological impact upon workers' job satisfaction. This results in lasting internal and external affective reactions exhibited through job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extraversion and introversion</span> Personality trait

Extraversion and introversion are a central trait dimension in human personality theory. The terms were introduced into psychology by Carl Jung, though both the popular understanding and current psychological usage are not the same as Jung's original concept. Extraversion tends to be manifested in outgoing, talkative, energetic behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in more reflective and reserved behavior. Jung defined introversion as an "attitude-type characterised by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents", and extraversion as "an attitude-type characterised by concentration of interest on the external object".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">HEXACO model of personality structure</span> Six-dimensional model of human personality

The HEXACO model of personality structure is a six-dimensional model of human personality that was created by Ashton and Lee and explained in their book, The H Factor of Personality, based on findings from a series of lexical studies involving several European and Asian languages. The six factors, or dimensions, include honesty-humility (H), emotionality (E), extraversion (X), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness to experience (O). Each factor is composed of traits with characteristics indicating high and low levels of the factor. The HEXACO model was developed through similar methods as other trait taxonomies and builds on the work of Costa and McCrae and Goldberg. The model, therefore, shares several common elements with other trait models. However, the HEXACO model is unique mainly due to the addition of the honesty-humility dimension.

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory is a personality inventory that assesses an individual on five dimensions of personality. These are the same dimensions found in the Big Five personality traits. These traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion(-introversion), agreeableness, and neuroticism. In addition, the NEO PI-R also reports on six subcategories of each Big Five personality trait.

Within personality psychology, it has become common practice to use factor analysis to derive personality traits. The Big Five model proposes that there are five basic personality traits. These traits were derived in accordance with the lexical hypothesis. These five personality traits: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience have garnered widespread support.

Personality change refers to the different forms of change in various aspects of personality. These changes include how we experience things, how our perception of experiences changes, and how we react in situations. An individual's personality may stay somewhat consistent throughout their life. Still, more often than not, everyone undergoes some form of change to their personality in their lifetime.

The biological basis of personality is a collection of brain systems and mechanisms that underlie human personality. Human neurobiology, especially as it relates to complex traits and behaviors, is not well understood, but research into the neuroanatomical and functional underpinnings of personality are an active field of research. Animal models of behavior, molecular biology, and brain imaging techniques have provided some insight into human personality, especially trait theories.

Wendy Johnson is an American differential psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Edinburgh. She holds the chair in Differential Development in the Department of Psychology and Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh.

Personality neuroscience uses neuroscientific methods to study the neurobiological mechanisms underlying individual differences in stable psychological attributes. Specifically, personality neuroscience aims to investigate the relationships between inter-individual variation in brain structures as well as functions and behavioral measures of persistent psychological traits, broadly defined as "predispositions and average tendencies to be in particular states", including but are not limited to personality traits, sociobehavioral tendencies, and psychopathological risk factors. Personality neuroscience is considered as an interdisciplinary field integrating research questions and methodologies from social psychology, personality psychology, and neuroscience. It is closely related to other interdisciplinary fields, such as social, cognitive, and affective neuroscience.

References

  1. ↑ Caspi, A. (2000). "The child is father of the man: personality continuities from childhood to adulthood". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (1): 158–172. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.589.3665 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.158. PMID   10653512.
  2. ↑ Deary, I. J.; Whalley, L. J.; Lemmon, H.; Crawford, J. R.; Starr, J. M. (2000). "The stability of individual differences in mental ability from childhood to old age: follow-up of the 1932 Scottish Mental Survey". Intelligence. 28 (1): 49–55. doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(99)00031-8.
  3. ↑ Barrick, M. R.; Mount, M. K. (1991). "The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta - analysis". Personnel Psychology. 44: 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x. S2CID   144689146.
  4. ↑ Calvin, C.; Batty, G. D.; Deary, I. J. (2011). Cognitive epidemiology: Concepts, evidence, and future directions. Oxford:Wiley–Blackwell.
  5. ↑ Kern, M.; Friedman, H. (2011). Personality and health. Oxford:Wiley–Blackwell.
  6. 1 2 Poropat, A. (2009). "A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance". Psychological Bulletin. 135 (2): 322–338. doi:10.1037/a0014996. hdl: 10072/30324 . PMID   19254083.
  7. ↑ Kaufman, S. B. (April 21, 2014). "How Does IQ Relate to Personality?". Scientific American.
  8. ↑ Nolan, S. A.; Roberts, J. E.; Gotlib, I. H. (1998). "Neuroticism and ruminative response style as predictors of change in depressive symptomatology". Cognitive Therapy and Research. 22 (5): 445–455. doi:10.1023/a:1018769531641. S2CID   15419457.
  9. ↑ Nettle, D.; Liddle, B. (2008). "Agreeableness is related to social-cognitive, but not social-perceptual, theory of mind". European Journal of Personality. 22 (4): 323–335. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.594.7750 . doi:10.1002/per.672. S2CID   51682037.
  10. ↑ Sternberg, R. J.; Grigorenko, E. L. The general factor of intelligence: How general is it?. Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 331–380.
  11. ↑ Gottfredson, L. S.; Deary, I. J. (2004). "Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why?". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 13: 1–4. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01301001.x. S2CID   15176389.
  12. ↑ Cronbach, L. J. (1949). "Essentials of psychological testing".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 Judge, T. A.; Jackson, C. L.; Shaw, J. C.; Scott, B. A.; Rich, B. L. (2007). "Self-efficacy and work-related performance: the integral role of individual differences". Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (1): 107–127. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107. PMID   17227155.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Anglim, Jeromy; Dunlop, Patrick D.; Wee, Serena; Horwood, Sharon; Wood, Joshua K.; Marty, Andrew (2022). "Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 148 (5–6): 301–336. doi:10.1037/bul0000373. hdl: 20.500.11937/89668 . ISSN   1939-1455. S2CID   253344751.
  15. 1 2 Stanek, Kevin (2014). "Meta-Analyses of Personality and Cognitive Ability". PhD Thesis. hdl:11299/201107.
  16. ↑ 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 (5): 880–896. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880. PMID   17983306. S2CID   8261816.
  17. ↑ 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 (5): 883–892. doi:10.1037/a0016615. PMC   2805551 . PMID   19857008.
  18. ↑ Wainwright, M. A.; Wright, M. J.; Luciano, M.; Geffen, G. M.; Martin, N. G. (2008). "Genetic covariation among facets of openness to experience and general cognitive ability " (PDF). Twin Research and Human Genetics. 11 (3): 275–286. doi:10.1375/twin.11.3.275. hdl: 20.500.11820/142f022a-ee86-4c68-b327-7c73601f0e34 . PMID   18498206. S2CID   9994912.
  19. ↑ Chamorro - Premuzic, T.; Ahmetoglu, G.; Furnham, A. (2008). "Little more than personality:Trait determinants of test anxiety ". Learning and Individual Differences. 18 (2): 258–263. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.09.002.
  20. ↑ Wicherts, J. M.; Scholten, A. (2010). "Test anxiety and the validity of cognitive tests: A confirmatory factor analysis perspective and some empirical findings". Intelligence. 38: 169–178. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.09.008.
  21. ↑ Zuckerman, M.; Spielberger, C. D. Emotions and anxiety: New concepts, methods, and applications. New York:Wiley. pp. 57–81.
  22. ↑ Sommer, Markus; Arendasy, Martin E. (2014-01-01). "Comparing different explanations of the effect of test anxiety on respondents' test scores". Intelligence. 42: 115–127. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.11.003. ISSN   0160-2896.
  23. ↑ Gow, A. J.; Whiteman, M. C.; Pattie, A.; Deary, I. J. (2005). "The personality–intelligence interface: Insights from an ageing cohort". Personality and Individual Differences. 39 (4): 751–761. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.028.
  24. ↑ Leikas, S.; M¨akinen, S.; L¨ onnqvist, J.E.; Verkasalo, M. (2009). "Cognitive ability×Emotional stability interactions on adjustment". European Journal of Personality. 23 (4): 329–342. doi:10.1002/per.711. S2CID   145265142.
  25. 1 2 Chamorro-Premuzic, T.; Moutafi, J.; Furnham, A. (2005). "The relationship between personality traits, subjectively-assessed and fluid intelligence". Personality and Individual Differences. 38 (7): 1517–1528. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.018.
  26. ↑ 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. doi:10.1002/per.471. S2CID   143599504.
  27. ↑ Moutafi, J.; Furnham, A.; Crump, J. (2006). "What facets of openness and conscientiousness predict fluid intelligence score?". Learning and Individual Differences. 16: 31–42. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2005.06.003.
  28. ↑ Austin=, A. J.; Deary, I. J.; Whiteman, M. C.; Fowkes, F. G. R.; Padersen, N. L.; Rabbitt, P.; Bent, N.; McInnes, L. (2002). "Relationships between ability and personality: Does intelligence contribute positively to personal and social adjustment?". Personality and Individual Differences. 32 (8): 1391–1411. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00129-5.
  29. 1 2 3 Ackerman, P. L.; Heggestad, E. D. (1997). "Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits". Psychological Bulletin. 121 (2): 219–245. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219. PMID   9100487.
  30. ↑ Postlethwaite, B.; Robbins, S.; Rickerson, J.; McKinniss, T. (2009). "The moderation of conscientiousness by cognitive ability when predicting workplace safety behaviour". Personality and Individual Differences. 47 (7): 711–716. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.008.
  31. ↑ Wolf, M. B.; Ackerman, P. L. (2005). "Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation". Personality and Individual Differences. 39 (3): 531–542. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.020. hdl: 1853/9454 .
  32. ↑ Rawlings, D.; Skok, M. (1993). "Extraversion, venturesomeness and intelligence in children". Personality and Individual Differences. 15 (4): 389–396. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90066-c.
  33. ↑ Saklofske, D. H.; Kostura, D. D. (1990). "Extraversion–introversion and intelligence". Personality and Individual Differences. 11 (6): 547–551. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90036-q.
  34. ↑ Bates, T. C.; Rock, A. (2004). "Personality and information processing speed: Independent influences on intelligent performance". Intelligence. 32 (1): 33–46. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2003.08.002.
  35. ↑ Revelle, W.; Amaral, P.; Turriff, S. (1976). "Introversion/extraversion, time stress, and caffeine". Science. 192 (4235): 149–150. doi:10.1126/science.1257762. PMID   1257762.
  36. ↑ DeYoung, C. G.; Peterson, J. B.; S´eguin, J. R.; Pihl, R. O.; Tremblay, R. E. (2008). "Externalizing behavior and the higher-order factors of the Big Five". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 117 (4): 947–953. doi:10.1037/a0013742. PMID   19025240. S2CID   14737521.
  37. ↑ Séguin, J. R.; Boulerice, B.; Harden, P.; Tremblay, R. E.; Pihl, R. O. (1999). "Executive functions and physical aggression after controlling for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, general memory, and IQ". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 40 (8): 1197–1208. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.565.303 . doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00536. PMID   10604398.
  38. ↑ Lynam, D. R.; Moffitt, T. E.; Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). "Explaining the relation between IQ and delinquency: Class, race, test motivation, school failure, or self-control?". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 102 (2): 187–196. doi:10.1037/0021-843x.102.2.187. PMID   8315131.
  39. ↑ DeYoung, C. G.; Peterson, J. B.; Séguin, J. R.; Mejia, J. M.; Pihl, R. O.; Beitchman, J. H.; Jain, U.; Tremblay, R. E.; Kennedy, J. L.; Palmour, R. M. (2006). "The dopamine D4 receptor gene and moderation of the association between externalizing behavior and IQ". Archives of General Psychiatry. 63 (12): 1410–1416. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.12.1410. PMC   3283582 . PMID   17146015.
  40. ↑ Mayer, J. D.; Salovey, P.; Caruso, D. R. (2004). "Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications". Psychological Inquiry. 60 (3): 197–215. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1503_02. S2CID   144415437.
  41. ↑ Mayer, J. D.; Salovey, P.; Caruso, D. R. (2008). "Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits?". American Psychologist. 63 (6): 503–517. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.453.6438 . doi:10.1037/0003-066x.63.6.503. PMID   18793038.
  42. ↑ MacCann, C.; Joseph, D. L.; Newman, D. A.; Roberts, R. D. (2014). "Emotional intelligence is a second-stratum factor of intelligence: Evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models". Emotion. 14 (2): 358–374. doi:10.1037/a0034755. PMID   24341786.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.