Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Can personality factors predict intelligence?

Joanna Moutafi, Adrian Furnham *, Laurence Paltiel
Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WCI OAP, UK

Received 27 January 2004; received in revised form 29 May 2004; accepted 30 June 2004
Available online 7 October 2004

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between personality traits and psychometric intelligence.
A total of 4859 participants completed the Critical Reasoning Test Battery (GRT2) and the Fifteen Factor
Questionnaire (15FQ). Of the second-order personality factors, Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Neur-
oticism were significant predictors of general intelligence (g). Regressing personality and demographic fac-
tors on g indicated that they accounted for 13% of its variance. The investigation of personality predictors
of specific mental abilities (numerical, verbal and abstract reasoning) revealed that although some variables
can be used to predict scores on all three abilities (e.g. Conscientiousness, Extraversion), other variables can
be used to predict only specific abilities (e.g. Openness, Neuroticism). Regressing personality and demo-
graphic factors on specific abilities indicated that they accounted for 9–17% of the variance in intelligence
scores.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Intelligence; Personality; Sex; Age

1. Introduction

The present study is an investigation of the extent to which personality traits can predict psy-
chometric intelligence. Intelligence and personality are usually treated as relatively distinct in the

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 207 3877050; fax: +44 207 4364276.
E-mail address: a.furnham@ucl.ac.uk (A. Furnham).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.023
1022 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033

research on individual differences, however, many studies have shown that there are consistent
predictable correlations between these two constructs (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Austin
et al., 2002; Collis & Messick, 2001; Furnham, Forde, & Cotter, 1998; Goff & Ackerman, 1992;
Kyllonen, 1997; Zeidner, 1995). These studies have been based on a variety of intelligence and per-
sonality measures, which provides a broader understanding of the relationships between the two
constructs, but has led to inconsistencies in the findings, which make interpretations difficult. Here
we will summarize the findings that relate general, fluid and crystallized intelligence to the traits of
the Five Factor Model of personality, which was proposed by McCrae and Costa (1987).
Out of the Big 5 personality factors, the one which has most consistently been found to corre-
late with intelligence is Openness (Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). Significant correlations have been
found between Openness and general intelligence (Austin et al., 2002; Kyllonen, 1997; Moutafi,
Furnham, & Crump, 2003), and between Openness and quantitative ability (Kyllonen, 1997). It
has however been proposed that Openness more specifically correlates with crystallized intelli-
gence (gc) (Brand, 1994). Indeed, correlations of the magnitude of r = 0.58 have been reported
between Openness and verbal ability, which is a measure of gc (Kyllonen, 1997). Goff and Ack-
erman (1992) suggested that the relationship between gc and Openness may be mediated by Typ-
ical Intellectual Engagement (TIE), which is a measure of intellectual motives and interests.
Another factor, which has been found to be correlated with intelligence, is Extraversion (Zeidner
& Matthews, 2000). Findings on this relationship have been controversial, in that Extraversion has
been found to be both positively (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Austin et al., 2002; Lynn, Hamp-
son, & Magee, 1984) and negatively (Furnham et al., 1998; Moutafi et al., 2003) linked to measures
of intelligence. It has been proposed that the relationship between Extraversion and intelligence is
mediated by the nature of the intelligence test, due to Introverts having a higher resting level of
cortical arousal than Extraverts (Eysenck, 1967; Eysenck, 1994). This suggestion is in line with
Robinson (1985), who claimed that Extraversion is associated with intellectual styles and intelli-
gence profiles and not with actual ability. More specifically, Extraverts have been found to perform
better on timed tasks (Rawlings & Carnie, 1989) whereas Introverts tend to perform better in tasks
requiring insight and reflection (Matthews, 1992; Saklofske & Zeidner, 1995).
Significant negative correlations have also been observed between Neuroticism and intelligence
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Kyllonen, 1997; Moutafi et al., 2003). The negative sign indicates
that individuals who score highly on Neuroticism tend to achieve lower intelligence scores. One of
the sub-factors of Neuroticism, which seems to mediate the relationship between Neuroticism and
intelligence, is anxiety. According to Eysenck (1979), high-anxiety individuals engage in signifi-
cantly more task-irrelevant processing (worry) than low-anxiety individuals, which impairs their
performance. Negative correlations between anxiety and intelligence have been reported (Moutafi
et al., 2003) and experimental research has shown that anxiety can impair intellectual functioning
in a variety of contexts, ranging from IQ tests to school achievement (Sarason, 1980; Hembree,
1988). It seems that Neuroticism is more related to intelligence test performance than to intelli-
gence per se, in that it affects the test-taking experience, which in turn leads to lower scores (Mout-
afi, Furnham, & Tsaousis, submitted for publication).
The findings on the relationship between Conscientiousness and intelligence have been contro-
versial. Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) reported a near zero correlation between Conscientious-
ness and g in their meta-analysis, a finding which was supported by Kyllonen (1997). However, a
marginally significant negative relationship has been reported between Conscientiousness and cre-
 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033 1023

ativity (Furnham, 1999), and most importantly, recent studies have reported negative correlations
between Conscientiousness and measures of intelligence (Allik & Realo, 1997; Demetriou, Kyriak-
ides, & Avraamidou, 2003; Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, submitted for publication;
Moutafi et al., 2003; Moutafi, Furnham, & Paltiel, 2004). It has been suggested that less intelligent
individuals, from competitive school, academic or business institutions, may become more consci-
entious in order to cope with their disadvantage. It is also possible that more intelligent individuals
do not become so conscientious, as they can rely on their intelligence to accomplish most tasks.
The only factor of the Big 5 that has not been found to be related to intelligence is Agreeable-
ness (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Furnham et al., submitted for publication; Austin et al.,
2002; Kyllonen, 1997).
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between personality and intelligence,
using valid psychometric tests hitherto not reported in this specific literature. These tests were
used not only to extend our understanding of the relationship between the two constructs, but also
to provide psychologists in the occupational field, who use these tests for recruitment and selec-
tion, with an understanding of how the measures they use for assessment are theoretically inter-
related. In order to obtain a more comprehensive picture, three measures of intelligence were used
(numerical reasoning, verbal reasoning and abstract reasoning), in addition to a measure of gen-
eral intelligence (which was derived from factor analysis of these three). These scores were related
to a particular measure of the Big 5, which is used in occupational settings, but has not yet been
widely used for research purposes.
The first hypothesis (H1) is that Openness will be a significant positive predictor of verbal and
numerical reasoning, and of general intelligence. This would support Kyllonen (1997), who found
Openness to be positively correlated with verbal ability, quantitative ability, and g. The second
hypothesis (H2) is that Extraversion will be a significant positive predictor of the three intelligence
tests, as they are timed tests, which have been found to favor Extraverts (Rawlings & Carnie,
1989). The third hypothesis (H3) is that Neuroticism will be a significant negative predictor of
general intelligence, in line with Ackerman and Heggestad (1997), and of the three intelligence
measures (numerical, verbal, abstract reasoning), in line with the suggestion that Neuroticism is
related to intelligence test performance (Moutafi et al., submitted for publication). The fourth
hypothesis (H4) is that Conscientiousness will be a significant (negative) predictor of general intel-
ligence, in line with Demetriou et al. (2003) and Furnham et al. (submitted for publication).
In the statistical analysis of the data, gender and age of the subjects will be controlled for, as
these demographic factors have been found to correlate with intelligence. There is a general con-
sensus is that males and females do not differ in general intelligence (APA Public Affairs Office,
1997; Hyde & Linn, 1988; Loehlin, 2000; Matthews, Davies, Westerman, & Stammers, 2000),
although some researchers oppose with this (Lynn, 1994, 1999). Sex differences have however been
reported in the variance of IQ scores, with males showing greater variability (Feingold, 1992) and
more importantly, researchers have found significant sex differences in specific abilities (Matthews
et al., 2000). In the study of age-related differences in cognitive ability, there is a general consensus
that scores on intelligence tests tend to decline with age (Schaie, 1994), with fluid intelligence peak-
ing at the age of 16 or 17 and crystallized intelligence peaking within the age range of 45–54
(Ryan, Sattler, & Lopez, 2000). Researchers however also advocate for the stability of intelligence
(Deary, Whalley, Lemmon, Crawford, & Starr, 2000), due to a change in the genetic over the envi-
ronmental contribution across the lifespan (Plomin, Pedersen, Lichtenstein, & McClearn, 1994).
1024 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033

2. Method

2.1. Participants

A total of 4859 participants were recruited for this study. Of these, 3944 were male and 903
were female (12 did not specify their gender). Their age ranged from 14 to 63, with a mean of
35.28 and a standard deviation of 8.67. In the statistical analysis of the intelligence measures, par-
ticipants who scored below 4 (out of 35), on any test were excluded from the analysis. This meant
that in total 4639 participants were included, of which 3765 were male and 865 were female (9
did not specify their gender). Their age ranged from 14 to 63 with a mean of 35.23 and a stand-
ard deviation of 8.61. Participants were all applying for jobs in the human resource management
field.

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. The general reasoning test battery (GRT2) (Budd, 1993)

This is a timed (28 min), speeded ability test, measuring numerical (NR) (25 items), verbal (VR)
(35 items) and abstract (AR) (25 items) reasoning. Numerical reasoning measures the ability to
use numbers in a logical and efficient way. Verbal reasoning measures basic vocabulary, verbal
fluency, and the ability to reason using words. Abstract reasoning measures the ability to under-
stand abstract logical problems, and use new information outside the range of previous experi-
ence. Examination of the alpha coefficients for all three sub-tests of the GRT2 showed that
they were all above 0.8, demonstrating a high level of reliability of the test. Furthermore, test–ret-
est coefficients were all above 0.7. In order to test the validity of the GRT2, its sub-scales and total
score were compared to the sub-scales and total score of the Alice Heim reasoning test (AH5).
Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.56 to 0.76 for the sub-scales, and for the total scores of
the two tests it was 0.82 (N = 81), demonstrating that the GRT2 measures the same trait of rea-
soning ability which is assessed by the AH5, although the discriminant validity of the sub-scales is
not very high. These results are presented in Table 1.

2.2.2. Fifteen factor questionnaire (15FQ) (Budd, 1992)

This is an un-timed questionnaire, taking approximately 30 min to complete, measuring 15
bipolar personality dimensions. The 15FQ was developed in the UK on a large sample of appli-
cants drawn from a wide range of occupational groups, and is used for personnel assessment and
selection (Budd, 1992). The items were selected with the criteria that they cover the construct ade-
quately, while maintaining acceptable levels of scale cohesiveness and minimum overlap with
other scales. The dimensions measured by the test are Outgoing, Stable, Assertive, Enthusiastic,
Conscientious, Socially bold, Intuitive, Suspicious, Conceptual, Restrained, Self-doubting, Radi-
cal, Self-sufficient, Disciplined, Tense driven.
Factor analysis has shown that a further five broad underlying characteristics can be derived
from the 15FQ, which have been found to be favorably compared to the Big 5 factors of
personality. These are Extraversion (corresponding to NEO Extraversion, r = 0.77), Anxiety (cor-
responding to NEO Neuroticism, r = 0.71), Tough-mindedness (corresponding to NEO Openness,
 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033 1025

Table 1
Reliability and validity coefficients for GRT2 and 15FQ
Reliability Validity
Alpha coef. Test–retest coef. Alice Heim 5 16PF
r N r N Num. Ver. Per.
NR 0.84 135 0.78 70 0.76
VR 0.83 135 0.79 70 0.63
AR 0.83 135 0.74 70 0.56
FA 0.70 618 0.80 83 0.63
FC 0.67 618 0.71 83 0.69
FE 0.64 618 0.78 83 0.57
FF 0.73 618 0.88 83 0.64
FG 0.72 618 0.68 83 0.29
FH 0.79 618 0.85 83 0.75
FI 0.69 618 0.80 83 0.73
FL 0.74 618 0.76 83 0.59
FM 0.72 618 0.70 83 0.72
FN 0.65 618 0.87 83 0.15
FO 0.77 618 0.71 83 0.82
FQ1 0.73 618 0.78 83 0.59
FQ2 0.66 618 0.79 83 0.78
FQ3 0.80 618 0.79 83 0.32
FQ4 0.66 618 0.78 83 0.25

r = 0.64), Independence (corresponding to NEO Agreeableness, r = 0.55) and Control (corre-

sponding to NEO Conscientiousness, r = 0.36).
The technical manual provides evidence for the testÕs reliability and validity (Budd, 1992). All
the 15FQ dimensions were found to have reliability coefficients above 0.64, which compare
favourably to the reliability coefficients of the 16PF (Smith, 1994). Long-term data also showed
test–retest reliability coefficients ranging from 0.70 to 0.88. Evidence for the testÕs construct valid-
ity comes from comparisons between the 15FQ and other personality measures such as the 16PF
and the NEO short form, which show that the dimensions of the 15FQ are consistent with similar
measures. The Alpha coefficients, the test–retest reliability coefficients and the correlations be-
tween the 15FQ factors and their corresponding factors of the 16PF are presented in Table 1.
Although most scales have satisfactory levels of validity, some scales show rather low levels.
The validity of the 15FQ has been however further supported by looking at the relationship of
the 15FQ with a number of tests, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Jung Type Indi-
cator, the Professional Personality Questionnaire, the Occupational Personality Profile and the
FIRO-B (Budd, 1992).

2.3. Procedure

Participants were all job applicants tested by Psytech International as part of an assessment
center.
1026 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033

3. Results

3.1. Intelligence measures

Scores on all three intelligence measures were approximately normally distributed with a slight
positive skew. Scores on abstract reasoning ranged from 4 to 25 (M = 17.67, SD = 4.67), with
41.5% of the participants responding to all items. Scores on numerical reasoning ranged from 4
to 25 (M = 17.45, SD = 5.31), with 30.4 of the participants responding to all items. Scores on ver-
bal reasoning ranged from 4 to 35 (M = 23.97, SD = 5.43), with 46.2% of the participants
responding to all items.
Pearson product moment correlations were computed to investigate the relationship between
the three sub-tests of the General Reasoning Test 2 (verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning).
These are presented in Table 2. Partial correlations were also computed, controlling for gender
and age, these are presented in brackets.
In order to obtain a measure of general intelligence, principal component analysis was per-
formed on the three intelligence tests. This yielded one factor (g), with loadings of 0.87 (numerical
reasoning), 0.84 (abstract reasoning) and 0.83 (verbal reasoning).

3.2. Second-order factors of the 15FQ

It has been established by factor analysis that the 15FQ dimensions can be summarized in five
broad dimensions of personality (Budd, 1992), which correspond to each of the five dimensions of
the Five Factor Model. Correlations between the Big 5 and their corresponding dimensions are
given in the method section. These second order factors were computed for this sample using
the following formulae, provided by the manual of the 15FQ (Budd, 1992):

• Anxiety (Neuroticism) = (Suspicious + Self-doubting + Tense driven-Stable)/4

• Extraversion (Extraversion) = (Outgoing + Enthusiastic + Socially bold-Self-sufficient)/4
• Tough Minded (Openness) = (Intuitive + Conceptual + Radical)/3
• Independence (Agreeableness) = (Assertive + Suspicious-Restrained + Radical + Enthusiastic)/5
• Control (Conscientiousness) = (Conscientious + Restrained + Disciplined)/3

3.2.1. Factor analysis

In order to investigate the validity of the second order factors, factor analysis with varimax
rotation was performed on the fifteen personality factors of the 15PF. Five factors were extracted,
accounting for 68% of the variance. The rotated factor matrix is presented in Table 3.

Table 2
Correlations between GRT2-NR, GRT2-VR and GRT2-AR (and partial correlations)
GRT2-VR GRT2-AR
GRT2-NR 0.58* (0.59*) 0.61* (0.61*)
GRT2-AR 0.53* (0.52*)
*p < 0.001, N = 4639 (N = 4625)
 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033 1027

Table 3
Rotated component matrix for second order factors of 15FQ
Component
Extraversion (E) Anxiety (N) Tough-minded (O) Control (C) Independence (A)
Outgoing 0.80 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Self-sufficient 0.72 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Socially bold 0.64 0.13 0.23 0.11 0.28
Enthusiastic 0.59 0.00 0.22 0.14 0.50
Self-doubting 0.11 0.77 0.00 0.12 0.22
Tense driven 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.19 0.00
Stable 0.19 0.71 0.00 0.24 0.10
Suspicious 0.22 0.46 0.00 0.19 0.31
Conceptual 0.13 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00
Intuitive 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.10 0.00
Radical 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25 0.32
Conscientious 0.00 0.18 0.16 0.67 0.00
Disciplined 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.60 0.00
Restrained 0.14 .14 0.00 0.46 0.41
Assertive 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66

As can be seen from the table, Outgoing, Self-sufficient, Socially bold and Enthusiastic load on
Extraversion (E), Self-doubting, Stable, Tense driven and Suspicious load on Anxiety (N), Con-
ceptual, Intuitive and Radical load on Tough Minded (O), Conscientious, Disciplined and Re-
strained load on Control (C), and Enthusiastic, Suspicious, Radical, Restrained and Assertive
load on Independence (A). Thus, the results of the factor analysis are in line with the structure
of the second-order factors as reported in the manual. The eigenvalues and the variance accounted
for by these factors are presented in Table 4.
Pearson product moment correlation coefficients between the five personality factors and the
four intelligence measures, and partial correlations, controlling for gender and age are presented
in Table 3. Multiple regressions were performed for each of the dependent variables (NR, VR, AR
and g). The independent variables used were the five factors extracted from the factor analysis,
gender and age. These results are summarized in Table 5.

3.2.2. Numerical reasoning

The model that used NR as the dependent variable was significant accounting for 9% of the
variance in intelligence scores. Significant predictors of NR were Anxiety (–), Independence, Con-
trol (–), gender (–) and age (–).

Table 4
Eigenvalues and % of variance accounted for by factor analysis components
Eigenvalues % of Variance Cumulative %
Extraversion (E) 3.67 24.48 24.48
Anxiety (N) 2.26 15.09 39.57
Tough-Minded (O) 1.86 12.42 51.99
Control (C) 1.41 9.41 61.40
Independence (A) 1.11 7.41 68.81
1028 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033

Table 5
Beta coefficients for multiple regressions of personality and demographic factors on intelligence easures
GRT2-NR GRT2-VR GRT2-AR G
Beta Beta Beta Beta
Anxiety (N) 0.08* 0.05 0.07* 0.08*
Extraversion (E) 0.09* 0.08* 0.08* 0.10*
Tough-Minded (O) 0.05 0.07* 0.04 0.01
Independence (A) 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.05
Control (C) 0.20* 0.24* 0.017* 0.24*
Gender 0.16* 0.00 0.08* 0.09*
Age 0.14* 0.16* 0.39* 0.29*
Regression model F(7,4621) = 63.81* F(7,4621) = 68.79* F(7,4621) = 137.35* F(7,4621) = 102.76*
Adj. R2 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.13
*p < 0.001

3.2.3. Verbal reasoning

The model that used VR as the dependent variable was significant accounting for 9% of the var-
iance in intelligence scores. Significant predictors of VR were Anxiety (–), Tough-minded, Inde-
pendence, Control (–) and age (–).

3.2.4. Abstract Reasoning

The model that used AR as the dependent variable was significant accounting for 17% of the
variance in intelligence scores. Significant predictors of AR were Anxiety (–), Independence, Con-
trol (–), gender (–) and age (–).

3.2.5. General intelligence

The model that used g as the dependent variable was significant accounting for 13% of the
variance in intelligence scores. Significant predictors of g were Anxiety (–), Independence, Control
(–), gender (–) and age (–).

3.2.6. Curve estimation

Non-linear relationships were also tested for each of the five personality factors (as independent
variables), and each of the intelligence measures (as dependent variables). These models were
viewed in comparison to linear models in order to estimate whether a non-linear model fitted
the data better than a linear one. The curve models that were tested were logarithmic, quadratic
and cubic. For Anxiety, Extraversion and Control, the model that best fitted the data of all intel-
ligence tests was the linear model. For Independence, none of the models tested were significant at
the 0.001 significance level. Finally, for Openness, verbal intelligence was best predicted by the
linear model, abstract reasoning was not significantly predicted by any model, numerical reason-
ing was best predicted by as logarithmic model (F(1,4627) = 12.74, p < 0.001, Adj. R2 = 0.00, Be-
ta = 0.05) and g was best predicted by a quadratic model (F(2,4636) = 8.98, p < 0.001, Adj.
R2 = 0.00, Beta1 = 0.23, Beta2 = 0.26), although Openness accounted for less than 1% of the var-
iance in NR and g scores.
 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033 1029

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which personality trait scores can predict
psychometric intelligence. Together, the second-order factors of the 15FQ accounted for 13% of
the variance in gs, and 9–17% of the variance in specific abilities. A series of hypotheses were
tested, with respect to the individual contribution of specific personality factors. The second-order
factors of the 15FQ will be referred to in the discussion by their names that correspond to the
Five-Factor model, to make comparisons with previous studies clearer.
The first hypothesis (H1), which was that Openness (O) would be a significant positive predictor
of verbal, numerical reasoning, and of g, was only partly supported by the results. This hypothesis
was based on the findings of Kyllonen (1997), who found O to be positively correlated with
numerical reasoning and with g, as well as with verbal reasoning. The present results however
showed that O was a significant predictor of verbal reasoning only. It has been proposed that
Open individuals are more inclined to engage in intellectual activities, especially those of a verbal
and cultural nature, which may lead them to develop their verbal reasoning (Zeidner & Matthews,
2000). Based on the suggestion that tests of verbal reasoning are generally believed to measure gc
(Horn, 1988), this finding seems to support the suggestion that O specifically and exclusively cor-
relates with crystallized intelligence (gc) (Brand, 1994; Goff & Ackerman, 1992). However, it
should be noted that the sub-tests of GRT2 have not been explicitly linked to either gf or gc,
and therefore conclusions on the relationship between O and gc cannot be reached by the present
study.
The second hypothesis (H2), which was that Extraversion (E) would be a significant positive
predictor of numerical, verbal and abstract reasoning was not supported by the results. Contrary
to expectations, Extraversion was found to be a significant negative predictor of AR, VR, NR and
g. The hypothesis proposed here was based on the suggestion that Extraverts have an advantage
over Introverts for short and speeded tasks due to their lower resting level of cortical arousal
(Rawlings & Carnie, 1989). This is because E has been found to mediate the inverted U-shaped
relationship between arousal and intelligence, causing Extraverts to perform better under condi-
tions of medium and high arousal (such as completing short and speeded tests), and Introverts to
perform better under conditions of low arousal (Bates & Rock, 2004). The hypothesis was there-
fore made on the assumption that GRT2 is a short and speeded task, as the test comprises of 85
multiple-choice questions, which must be completed in 28 min. It could however be argued that
although the test is definitely a speeded task, it may not necessarily be considered as a short
one. This would mean that Extraverts may outperform Introverts initially, but may then get bored
(under-aroused), which would cause them to perform less efficiently. This could be tested by fu-
ture studies, by administering an IQ test on a pc, which would be programmed to calculate
achieved scores at different times, i.e. this would allow comparison of ExtravertsÕ and IntrovertsÕ
performance at time1 versus time2, even though the psychometric properties of the test would not
be valid when only a part of the test would be completed.
The third hypothesis (H3) was that Neuroticism (N) would be a significant negative predictor of
general intelligence and of all three specific abilities. This hypothesis was partly supported by the
results, as Neuroticism was a significant predictor of NR, AR and g, but failed to reach signifi-
cance for VR at the 0.001 significance level. However, all correlations and partial correlations,
including those for VR were significant. It has been proposed that the relationship between N
1030 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033

and intelligence is mediated by anxiety (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Moutafi et al., submitted for
publication; Sarason, 1980; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). This is because Neurotic individuals
experience higher levels of test (state) anxiety, and anxiety causes individuals to engage in signif-
icantly more task-irrelevant processing (worry), which interferes with their performance (Eysenck,
1979).
This implies that N is actually more systematically related to intelligence test performance than
to intelligence per se. This suggestion cannot actually be argued here, as a measure of state anxiety
was not administered in order to test this. However, participants would be expected to experience
anxiety, on the basis that their performance on the tests would have major consequences for them,
as it would affect their chances to be selected or promoted. It would perhaps be advisable for
organizations that use intelligence tests for any form of selection, to also administer a question-
naire measuring anxiety. This is because if N is negatively linked to intelligence test performance
due to state anxiety, IQ tests will underestimate the intelligence of Neurotics. This will be so for IQ
tests administered mostly under any context, as conditions of testing are generally believed to in-
duce state anxiety (Dobson, 2000), but especially if the results of the tests will have consequences
on the stestees, as this will elevate state anxiety further.
The fourth hypothesis (H4), which was that Conscientiousness (C) would be a negative predic-
tor of g was clearly supported by the results. C was further a significant negative predictor of
numerical, verbal as well as abstract reasoning, and Pearson product moment and partial corre-
lations were also significant for all intelligence measures. These results are in line with recent stud-
ies that have investigated the relationship of intelligence and personality (Allik & Realo, 1997;
Demetriou et al., 2003; Furnham et al., submitted for publication; Moutafi et al., 2003), which
have reported a negative link between C and intelligence. It has been proposed C specifically cor-
relates with fluid intelligence (Moutafi et al., 2004). This has been explained in that this trait may
be adaptive, in the sense that low gf may lead to the development of C as a compensatory effect, or
that high gf may discourage its development, as gf may be sufficient to cope with situations that
would otherwise be efficiently dealt with by utilizing characteristics of C. For example in order to
complete an assignment, an individual low on gf would need to be organized, methodical and per-
sistent (which are characteristics of C), but an individual high on gf may have the ability to
accomplish the same task with less effort and less organization.
What was curious about C, was that it was also a significant predictor of verbal reasoning; in
the sense that if VR is indeed found to be a valid measure of gc, it would not be expected to cor-
relate with C as highly as gf does (Moutafi et al., 2004). This is because characteristics of C, such
as being organized, methodical and persistent, would be expected to positively affect the develop-
ment of gc during primary education, as gc is influenced by the environment. On the other hand,
the correlation is not totally unexpected, due to the high correlation between gf and gc (Cattell,
1971). Future studies should investigate the relationship between gc and C using established meas-
ures of gc, and ideally controlling for gf, in order to reach a conclusion on whether there is an
actual relationship between gc and C, or whether this is mediated by gf.
In summary, significant predictors of g were Conscientiousness (negative), Neuroticism (nega-
tive), age (negative) and sex (indicating an advantage of males). Together, personality and demo-
graphic factors accounted for 9–17% of the variance in general intelligence scores. The present
findings attest to the link between the constructs of personality and intelligence, emphasizing
the importance in investigating their relationship, instead of investigating them as independent
 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033 1031

constructs. The present study also indicates the importance of investigating the relationship of
personality variables in relation to specific types of intelligence. Although several factors were sig-
nificant predictors of all measures of intelligence (Extraversion, Conscientiousness), others were
predictors only of specific types of intelligence. For example Neuroticism was a predictor of
NR and AR but not of VR, while Openness was a predictor of VR but not of NR or AR. These
relationships with specific measures of intelligence are not discussed to a great extent, as the meas-
ures used have not been directly linked to either fluid or crystallized intelligence, and therefore
these findings will not contribute greatly to existing knowledge. However, merely the finding that
personality variables differentially correlate with specific types of intelligence should caution
researchers to specify the types of intelligence they are measuring when investigating their rela-
tionship with personality, as it will affect their findings.
Although this study was based on a large sample and of a wide age range, there is however a
limitation which should be considered. The Big 5 personality factors, which are discussed above
were not measured by the NEO PI-R, but were derived by the primary factors of the 15FQ.
Although previous research has provided evidence of high correlations between the second order
factors of the 15FQ and the Big 5 factors, they are still not identical. However, most of the results
replicated previous research findings which used the Big 5 factors as assessed by the NEO PI-R,
therefore using the second order factors of the15FQ does not seem to be an important limitation.
Furthermore, using a different test which measures the same factors is a way to provide further
support for previous research and moreover the primary factors of the 15FQ are conceptually
very close to the 16PF, which has thus far not been explored with respect to its relationship to
intelligence.
The investigation of the relationship between intelligence and personality is important, not only
for extending the research on individual differences, but also because it has important implications
in the applied field of psychology. Both personality and intelligence are individually used as pre-
dictors of different types of performance, such as academic and job performance (Salgado, 1997;
Carretta & Doub, 1998; Hunton, Wier, & Stone, 2000; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). Therefore
the understanding of the underlying relationship between these two constructs can be used to im-
prove their predictive validity, and shows that it would be most useful to use both measures in
conjunction instead of either individually.

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: evidence for overlapping traits.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
Allik, J., & Realo, A. (1997). Intelligence, academic abilities, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,
809–814.
APA Public Affairs Office (1997). Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
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, 1391–1411.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new
millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.
1032 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033

Bates, T., C & Rock, A. (2004). Personality and information processing speed: independent influences on intelligence
performance. Intelligence, 32, 33–46.
Brand, C. (1994). Open to experience-closed to intelligence: Why the ‘‘Big Five’’ are really the ‘‘Comprehensive Six’’.
European Journal of Personality, 8, 299–310.
Budd, R. J. (1992). 15FQ Technical Manual. Letchworth: Psytech International Ltd.
Budd, R. J. (1993). General, critical and graduate test battery: the technical manual. Letchworth: Psytech International
Ltd.
Carretta, T. R., & Doub, T. W. (1998). Group differences in the role of g and prior job knowledge in the acquisition of
subsequent job knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 585–593.
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Collis, J. M., & Messick, S. (2001). Intelligence and Personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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, 49–55.
Demetriou, A., Kyriakides, L., & Avraamidou, C. (2003). The missing link in the relations between intelligence and
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 547–581.
Dobson, P. (2000). Neuroticism, extraversion and cognitive test performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 8, 99–109.
Eysenck, H. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfiled, IL: Thomas.
Eysenck, H. (1979). The structure and measurement of intelligence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Eysenck, H. (1994). Personality and Intelligence: Psychometric and experimental approaches. In R. J. Sternberg &
P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and Intelligence (pp. 23–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eysenck, H., & Eysenck, M. (1985). Personality and individual differences. New York: Plenum.
Feingold, A. (1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 61–84.
Furnham, A. (1999). Personality and creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 407–408.
Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Moutafi, J. (submitted for publication). Personality and intelligence: gender,
the Big five, self-estimated and psychometric intelligence.
Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (1998). Personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 24,
187–192.
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537–552.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47–77.
Horn, J. L. (1988). A basis for research on age differences in cognitive abilities. In J. J. McArdle & R. W. Woodcock
(Eds.), Human cognitive abilities in theory and in practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Hunton, J. E., Wier, B., & Stone, D. N. (2000). Succeding in managerial accounting. Pert 2: A structural equations
analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 751–762.
Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104,
53–69.
Kyllonen, P. (1997). Smart testing. Handbook on testing. In R. Dillon (Ed.) (pp. 347–368). Westport, CT, US:
Greenwood Press/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Loehlin, J. C. (2000). Group differences in intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 176–193).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynn, R. (1994). Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved. Personality and Individual
Differences, 17, 257–271.
Lynn, R. (1999). Sex differences in intelligence: A developmental theory. Intelligence, 27, 1–12.
Lynn, R., Hampson, S., & Magee, M. (1984). Home background, intelligence, personality and education as predictors
of unemployment in young people. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 549–557.
Matthews, G. (1992). Extraversion. In: Smith, A. P., & Jones D. M. (Eds.), Handbook of human performance. Vol. 3:
state and trait (pp. 95–126). London: Academic.
Matthews, G., Davies, R. D., Westerman, S. J., & Stammers, R. B. (2000). Human Performance. East Sussex:
Psychology Press.
 J. Moutafi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1021–1033 1033

McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
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., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013–1022.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Tsaousis, I. (submitted for publication). Is the relationship between intelligence and trait
neuroticism mediated by test anxiety?
Plomin, R., Pedersen, N. L., Lichtenstein, P., & McClearn, G. E. (1994). Variability and stability in cognitive abilities
are largely genetic in later life. Behavior Genetics, 24, 207–215.
Rawlings, D., & Carnie, D. (1989). The interaction of EPQ extraversion and WAIS subtest performance under timed
and untimed conditions. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 453–458.
Robinson, D. (1985). How personality relates to intelligence test performance: implications for a theory of intelligence,
aging research, and personality assessment. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 203–216.
Ryan, J. J., Sattler, J. M., & Lopez, A. J. (2000). Age effects on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III subtests. Archives
of Clinical Neuropshycholoyg, 15, 311–317.
Saklofske, D. H., & Zeidner, M. (1995). International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence. New York: Plenum
Press.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five-factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.
Sarason, I. G. (Ed.). (1980). Test anxiety: theory, research and applications. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schaie, K. W. (1994). The course of adult intellectual development. American Psychologist, 49, 304–313.
Smith, P. (1994). The UK standardization of the 16PF5: A supplement of norms and technical data. Windsor: NFER
Publishing Co.
Zeidner, M. (1995). Personality trait correlates of intelligence. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International
handbook of personality and intelligence Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 299–319). New York, NY, US:
Plenum Press.
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence
(pp. 581–610). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.