IMAGINATION, COGNITION AND PERSONALITY, Vol.

25(2) 119-145, 2005-2006

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOMETRIC AND SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE, CREATIVITY, PERSONALITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

ADRIAN FURNHAM JANE ZHANG University College London TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC Goldsmiths College London

ABSTRACT

This longitudinal study aimed to explore the nature of the relationships between personality Big Five as measured by the (NEO PI-R), psychometric and self-estimated intelligence (Ravens, Wonderlic and Baddeley Tests) and creativity (Barron Welsh Test). A model was developed which proposed that both self-estimated intelligence (SEI) and creativity (SEC) as well as the Big Five personality traits, predicted both psychometric intelligence and creativity which in turn predicted academic performance. Results showed that Openness was significantly correlated with, and predicted, fluid intelligence (Ravens) as well as psychometric Creativity (Barron Welsh). SEI was found to be predictive of intelligence scores on all three IQ tests. Openness to Experience (positively) and Conscientiousness (negatively) was found to predict psychometric Creativity. Males gave consistently higher estimates than females in SEI and SEC. Academic performance was found to be predicted by trait Conscientiousness, and also by Baddeley (fluid intelligence). Implications of this study are discussed.

INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, there has been an increase in research into the relationship between intelligence and personality (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004a,
119 Ó 2006, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

120 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

2004b). The majority of studies investigating the relationship between personality factors and psychometric intelligence have yielded small but replicated effects (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, 2005; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2003). There have also been various studies on the relationship between self-estimated and psychometrically measured personality and intelligence (Furnham & ChamorroPremuzic, 2004a,b; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Moutafi, 2004). This study extends this research program by adding self-assessed and psychometric creativity to the above variables. In a theoretical model (see Figure 1) we examine to what extent three psychometrically measured variables (creativity, personality and intelligence) and two self-assessed variables (creativity, intelligence) predict academic performance. A central issue is whether a) creativity is related to university based grades (academic achievement) and b) whether self-assessed factors add an incremental validity over psychometrically assessed variables. PERSONALITY TRAITS AND INTELLIGENCE In a review of the literature Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic (2004a) suggested it was possible to draw links between intelligence and each of the Big Five Personality factors. Openness to Experience is repeatedly found to be the personality factor most influential on intelligence in this area of research (Furnham & Thomas, 2004; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). In particular it correlates very strongly with crystallized intelligence reporting correlations of up to r = .40 (Brand, 1994; Goff & Ackerman, 1992) and more recently r = .50 (ChamorroPremuzic, Furnham & Moutafi, 2004). Neuroticism, in particular the elements of anxiety, angry hostility and depression, has been found to be modestly negatively correlated with intelligence in various studies (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Hembre, 1988, Zeidner, 1995). This can be explained by the negative effects that anxiety can have on performance in academia and IQ tests. This reasoning is supported by Ackerman and Heggestad’s (1997) findings of a substantial negative correlation between self-reported test anxiety and general intelligence test performance. Extraversion has been occasionally positively correlated with intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Lynn, Hampson & Magee, 1984), although correlations are rather modest. It seems that this relationship may be dependent on the type of test used and precisely what it measures. Zeidner (1995) argued that extroverts have an advantage in performance tasks—which use quick acquisition of automatic motor sequences; however, introverts have an advantage in verbal tasks—using superior associative learning ability. This type of assertion addressing test conditions and test type can be explained through the different personality’s responses to arousal in Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1985) arousal theory.

was positively linked with higher levels of SEI (Furnham & Thomas. AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH INTELLIGENCE AND PERSONALITY Research into SEI and actual intelligence performance has shown the two factors to be significantly positively correlated between r = . & Thomas. Chamorro-Premuzic. 1998. and Moutafi (2005) reported a significant negative correlation between Conscientiousness and Baddeley Reasoning Test (BRT) measured intelligence (fluid intelligence). & Yik. They suggested that this could possibly be due to the participants with lower fluid intelligence compensating for this in a high pressure academic environment with dedication. 1997). 2004. because the major components of agreeableness such as trust. Furnham. accounting for up to 17% of SEI variance in one study (Furnham & Thomas. & Moutafi. Moutafi. 1997. & Furnham. 2001) and has highlighted the importance of introducing SEI into the personality-intelligence relationship. Openness to Experience was also found to correlate positively with SAI . 1992). 2004a. Furnham. Personality variables. 2004).30 and r = . SEI.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 121 Conscientiousness has been found to be rather weakly related to intellectual abilities (Ackerman & Heggestad. Lysy. De Raad. 1994. notably self-confidence.50 (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic. Indeed it lies at the heart of the model proposed by Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004a). as a whole. although. determination and studious habits which are all indicative of Conscientiousness. there were few significant correlations between Conscientiousness and intelligence. has been found to predict SEI. Extraversion. 2005) which can be explained by Neuroticism also being related to poor self-concept (Wells & Matthews. It seems that personality and psychometric intelligence are only mostly related indirectly with mediation from other factors such as self-estimated intelligence (SEI) or test-taking style. Furnham. modesty and compliance seem to have no bearing on actual intellectual ability but may influence self evaluations of ability. Zeidner & Matthews. 2000). Kidwai. 1996. Furnham. 2004. 1994). 2001). interestingly conscientiousness is strongly and repeatedly positively correlated with performance in both work and academia (Barrick & Mount. 2004). There seems to be near zero correlations between Agreeableness and intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad. Recent research into this area has shown predictable correlations between SEI and psychometric intelligence test performance (Paulus. The model places self-assessed intelligence as a moderator and mediator variable between personality traits and measures of both crystalized and fluid intelligence. Repeated studies indicate that Neuroticism is associated with lower levels of SEI (Furnham & Thomas. Chamorro-Premuzic. Furnham and Thomas (2004) reported that in general. Goff & Ackerman. Chamorro-Premuzic.

1969). showed that psychometric intelligence was predicted by Conscientiousness and SEI. Furnham and Thomas (2004) also found that Agreeableness was negatively correlated with SEI.55 and r = . Eysenck (1995) defines creativity as a latent trait underlying creative behaviors and that creative achievement/performance is a combined function of personality.42 respectively) and results tended to indicate that males also overestimated over females in mathematical and spatial intelligences compared to females (Furnham. whilst others believe that creativity is defined in terms of a specific process or mechanism (Weisberg. CREATIVITY. cognitive and environmental variables. . SEI was correlated with different types of intelligence in each gender. the third being intelligence and creativity are the same thing and the fourth being that intelligence and creativity are completely different and unrelated. AND PERSONALITY Sternberg and Lubart (1995) believed that the universal factors required for creativity must be novelty (e. The fifth and most popular position is that they are overlapping sets. which by nature suggests lower self-evaluation. personality and SEI.40) and in females it was spatial and verbal (r = . 1989. There are perhaps five major positions to take on the relationship between intelligence and creativity as outlined in Sternberg’s (1999) Handbook of Creativity. Chamorro-Premuzic and Moutafi (2005) using the Baddeley Reasoning Test and the Wonderlic Personnel Test (which are both used in this study). but also with measures of creativity and the yet unused measure of self-estimated creativity (SEC). as one of the major components of Agreeableness is modesty. and that SEI was again negatively predicted by Neuroticism (mainly anxiety) and Agreeableness (mainly modesty). thus personality directly predicts SEI and in turn. Gabora (1999) recently claimed that creative processing required a person to shift cognitively from associative thinking to cause and effect thinking. Multiple regressions in a study by Furnham. (2005) found that personality variables weakly predict IQ performance (intelligence) but SEI acts as a mediator between these factors. INTELLIGENCE. 1986). originality and newness) and appropriateness. This study is also concerned with the relationship between intelligence. a finding that is in consensus with abundant research into gender differences in self-reported ability. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC (Subjectively assessed intelligence—same as SEI). SEI directly predicts IQ performance. Barron. One recent article study by Furnham et al. in males it was numerical intelligence (r = . The first is that creativity is a subset of intelligence.. the second that intelligence is a subset of creativity. Indeed all the major researchers in this area define creativity in this way (Amabile. Interestingly. 2001).122 / FURNHAM.g. Differences in gender again affected SEI with females generally tending to give lower SEIs than males.

Feist’s (1998) meta-analysis of the literature found that creative people tended to be more “autonomous. The results that indicate a positive relationship with Conscientiousness may be more . Research into this area has consistently found some personality traits to be linked with creativity performance. and was particularly fascinated by the Openness to Experience factor in educational psychology as it is found to be modestly related to intelligence and quite strongly related to divergent thinking (an ability characteristic of creativity). 1995). and to be curious about one’s inner ideas and the outside world. though Psychoticism is (Eysenck. and closemindedness. Rawlings. openness to experience and psychoticism. The other “big five” traits are not clearly related to creativity (Richardson. in particular a person’s fluid intelligence (natural ability) and then by personality factors. 1996. Other studies have found no relationship between the two (Eysenck & Furnham. and tolerance for an exploration of the unfamiliar (Costa & McCrae. to explore. 2004a. rather than actual results of a creativity test. 2004b). 1992) and is also described as the willingness to try out new ideas. 1995). ambitious. McCrae & Costa (1997) characterized open personalities as “intrinsically artistic.” Rawlings. Gotz and Gotz (1979) discovered a negative relationship between the factor of Neuroticism and scientific creativity but a positive relationship with artistic creativity. However. However. hostile and impulsive” (p. self-accepting. Twomey. McCrae (1987) also took a similar stance. He reasoned that Conscientious people tend to invest more effort into pursuing creative activities than less Conscientious people. and it can only be concluded for the purposes of this study that Neuroticism and creativity are not significantly related. Certain traits were related negatively to creative scientists such as conscientiousness. conventionality.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 123 Cattell (1971) believed that “real life” creativity was determined by parts of one’s general intelligence. Twomey. McCrae (1987) found a positive correlation between Conscientiousness and creativity on self-report measures of the construct. norm-doubting. Martindale & Dailey. driven. 1987). Burns. it should be noted that creativity was measured through self-report measures. open to new experiences. Burns and Morris (1998) found in their longitudinal study that Openness to Experience measured during college was the best predictor of life course creativity 45 years later. and Morris (1998) found a relationship between creativity. 1996). 1993. introverted. dominant. there have been some interesting findings and correlates of creativity and creative output: The factor that is most powerfully and consistently positively linked with creativity is Openness to Experience (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic. With respect to the Big Five factors of personality. McCrae. Thus the connection between these two factors is greatly contested with no real consistent pattern found. there have been some cases where the positive link between creativity and Openness to Experience have not been found (Martindale & Dailey. By definition Openness to Experience is the proactive seeking and appreciation of experience for its own sake. 299). self-confident.

SEC AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CREATIVITY AND PERSONALITY There appear to be very few studies on self-estimated. Walker. Diseth. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE Studies show that some of the Big Five personality traits are linked with Academic Performance (AP). Conscientiousness has been found consistently to be a powerful predictor of AP (Barrick & Mount. a similar pattern can be found for creative performance (as measured by the Barron-Welsh Art Scale) and SEC (self-estimation of creativity). like SEI taps into many of Dweck’s (1999) ‘self-theories’ and factors such as self-esteem. & Broyles (1996) tested McCrae’s hypothesis again and found the opposite result. Thus. 1993. SEC. Personality variables such as confidence and modesty could also affect how a person evaluates their own creative abilities and hence their SEC.124 / FURNHAM. there has been little investigation into SEC it is possible that personality would also affect an individual’s self-estimation of their own creative abilities. a pattern that was also alluded to by Feist’s (1998) meta-analysis of the literature. Although. as opposed to. 2003b. However. SEI and intelligence relationship. Furnham (1999) asked students to complete three estimates of their own creativity along with both a measure of the Big Five (NEO) and a creativity test (Barron Welsh Art Scale). that Conscientiousness was in fact negatively significantly correlated with creativity. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC applicable to self-estimates of creativity (SEC) rather than actual creativity itself. self-motivation. so ends up becoming self-fulfilling. 2003a. otherrelated or psychometrically assessed creativity. King. McKee. Openness was correlated with all three measures of self-estimated creativity. just as it does for intellectual abilities. The evaluation of one’s own creative abilities would also no doubt have some impact on their creative output or at least their desire to get involved with creative activities. . In this study we shall pursue research on the relationship between self-estimated and psychometric creativity as well as personality and intelligence. He found personality unrelated to psychometrically assessed intelligence. It must be noted that environmental factors such as actual academic or artistic performance and also schooling and family attitudes toward creativity would also affect self-evaluation of creative abilities. self-worth which show that people’s beliefs about their own abilities are stable and can affect performance. in particular Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham. 1981. McCrae. 1987). Digman & Takemoto-Chock. Thus it is quite conceivable that a person with low self-esteem would give themselves both low SEI and a low SEC. This study will address whether. by extending the same reasoning used for the personality. SEC can conceivably act as a mediator or moderator variable between personality and Creativity. 2003.

that there was indeed a link. and creativity and how these eventually relate to university academic success. 1991). and Dalley (1997) investigated academic achievement (namely GPA) and personality and also found that Conscientiousness was found to predict academic achievement as predicted. The negative correlation with extraversion could be explained by the interpersonal and intrapersonal skills of a person. This study will investigate whether the association between creativity and personality is also mediated by SEC in the same way. Musgrave-Marquart. 1992) possibly due to routine practices of studying and careful preparation for exams and assessments. and Piedmont (1993) found that Openness to Experience was also correlated with Gough’s (1987) Achievement via Independence. Bromley. H2: Openness to Experience will be significantly positively correlated with Fluid Intelligence (measured by the Ravens and Baddeley tests). a highly extraverted student would perhaps spend less time studying and more time socializing or extracurricular activities than a less extraverted student thus resulting in a negative correlation with school AP (McCown & Johnson. McCrae.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 125 De Raad. This positive correlation between Openness to Experience and AP was replicated by Diseth (2003). in particular. McKenzie (1989) discovered that Extraversion was negatively correlated with success in higher education but the relationship with anxiety was not so clear. Research into other traits by Diseth (2003) and McCrae (1987) found that Agreeableness was negatively correlated with Academic Performance. . and that an interaction between neuroticism and high level of superego development (the “Furneaux” factor) was positively linked to academic achievement. 1996. H3: Fluid Intelligence (measured by the Ravens test) will be significantly positively correlated with Creativity. Costa. The hypotheses investigated in this study are: H1: It is predicted that there will be a link between the Big Five Personality Traits and Psychometric Creativity and in specifically that Openness to Experience will yield a significant positive correlation with Creativity (measured by the Barron Welsh). Diseth. a factor predicting AP at college level. modesty. a conclusion that is logically plausible when looking at the factors associated with Agreeableness. 2003. intelligence. Goff & Ackerman. He suggested however. THIS STUDY This longitudinal study will explore relationships between self-estimated and psychometrically assessed personality.

and collected from the same participants in December 2003. This study uses psychometric test based personality and intelligence data gathered from the participants in November 2001. H10: Gender will be significantly correlated with (a) SEI a and (b) SEC and males will produce significantly higher SEI Ravens. METHOD Sample Participants were sixty-four 3rd year psychology students from University College London ranging in age from 20-55 years (in 2003) with 18 males and 46 females. as well as psychometric creativity. while (b) Extraversion and SEI will produce a positive correlation. Openness to Experience. They were all fluent in English but came from a variety of backgrounds. data on self-estimated. The tests used in this study and their corresponding variables measured are: 1. There will be significant positive correlations between: (a) the Ravens scores and SEI Ravens. H5: Agreeableness will be significantly negatively correlated with SEC. specifically that the Wonderlic and Baddeley test scores will produce a significant positive correlation with AP (mean exam results). H9: There will be a significant positive correlation between SEC and Creativity (measured by the Barron-Welsh). H8: There will be a significant positive relationship between SEI and Intelligence. Measures This study uses a questionnaire design. 1992)—as a measure of Big Five personality traits in a 240-item non-timed inventory: Neuroticism. SEI Wonderlic and SEI Baddeley figures than females. H7: Conscientiousness will produce a significant positive correlation with AP. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC H4: There will be a link between personality and SEI. Extraversion. (b) the Wonderlic scores and SEI Wonderlic. The NEO PI-R Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae. H6: There will be a significant positive correlation between general intelligence and Academic Achievement. (c) the Baddeley test and SEI Baddeley. Figure 1 shows the predicted conceptual model created by combining H1-H10. specifically that (a) Agreeableness and SEI will produce a significant negative correlation. Agreeableness and .126 / FURNHAM.

. A predicted model of the interactions of variables in H1-H10.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 127 Figure 1.

The Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) (Wonderlic. They fill an L for like or a D for dislike for the number corresponding to the picture they are judging on the answer sheet provided. & Raven. Court. 1968)—as a measure of general and fluid intelligence (gf) through logical reasoning. . 3. 5. by figuring out the rules of each set item. “intelligence” is replaced with “creativity. The Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven. 2000)— adapted from the SEI for creativity instead of intelligence. disarranged sentences. The Baddeley Reasoning Test (BRT) (Baddeley. 5–strongly agree). Items include word and number comparisons. E) of 12 items that increases in level of difficulty. This test requires no language skills (Welsh. a component of (gf) and is timed (20 mins). The Barron-Welsh Art Scale (Barron & Welsh. 1992)—as a measure of general intelligence. The Self-Estimates of Creativity (SEC) Questionnaire (Furnham. This tests reliability and validity are high and has been used in a number of studies for quickly measuring intellectual ability. 6. cultural groups and clinical as well as normal populations provide abundant evidence for the test’s reliability and validity (Raven.. C. and scores can range from 0-50. 1993) multiple intelligences and asks participants to rate their own overall intelligence and also rate themselves on each of the multiple intelligences on a standardized scale where 100 is the average rating. All items are the same as the SEI questionnaire. The manual reports that studies on a wide range of age groups. 1987).128 / FURNHAM. Court. 1952)—as a measure of creativity. which are related by specific rules. dichotomous judgments about whether they like/dislike each picture. instinctive. 2. except that in all places. This is a 60-item test with scores ranging from 0-60 and is taken in 3 minutes. The Self-Estimates of Intelligence (SEI) Questionnaire (Furnham. 1983). but one figure is missing. 7.e. serial analysis of geometric figures and story problems that require mathematical and logical solutions. 1983)—as a non-verbal measure of pure fluid intelligence (gf). The inventory requires participants to indicate level of agreement with certain statements about one’s typical reactions and behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale (1–strongly disagree. The 60 items are divided into five groups (A. 4. D. & Raven. This scale consists of 86 different black and white pictures arranged numbered to 8 pictures per page. Each of the items has a few figures. This 60-item test measuring educative ability. Each item is a grammatical transformation where participants only need to answer whether the transformation comparison is true or false. The test has been used in various studies investigating intellectual ability and is shown to be very reliable. B. It is a 50-item test. Participants must find the missing one among five similar figures. 2001)— this was developed using Gardner (1983.” There are thus seven types of creativity that require rating (i. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC Conscientiousness. Participants are instructed to make quick. can be administered in 12 mins. This test has been shown to be very valid and reliable.

28.31. All students took part in 6 two-hour exams at the end of each year—2001 and 2002. Mean End-of-Year Exams Results—these were used as a measure of Academic Performance (AP). The average exam mark used as the measure of academic achievement was the calculated mean between the 2001 final exam mark and 2002 final exam mark. SEI Ravens and SEI Wonderlic did not achieve any significant correlations with any of the Big Five Personality Factors. H2: As for intelligence and personality.05). Participants received feedback on each of the tests that they completed. but not with the Wonderlic or the Baddeley’s scores which both contain measures of general intelligence.01). 8. etc. For the purpose of this study only the overall measure was used. Openness to Experience was again significantly correlated with the Raven’s scores which measure pure fluid intelligence (r = . The exam subjects were from the courses and literature students had been studying that year and answered in the form of essays (3 essays per exam) and these were graded by the UCL exam board and each paper was graded out of 100. Hence this study was a 2-year longitudinal study. Also.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 129 verbal.) as well as an overall scale. A year later they completed the creativity test and estimated their creativity scores. spatial. p = 0. Participants were shown a normal distribution with standard deviations described and asked to give their overall estimated score as well as estimates on the multiple creativity types.03). H3: There was no significant correlation between creativity scores and any of the three intelligence tests. 1. . However. All data were matched to academic exam output over a two year period. p = . Three months later they estimated their own intelligence. H1: The results above show that Creativity is significantly positively correlated with Openness to Experience (r = . H4: Conscientiousness and SEI Baddeley produced a significant positive correlation.27. Correlations Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients were calculated for all measures in this study and significant figures are in bold (see Table 1). p < . Procedure Participants completed the personality and intelligence tests soon after starting university. Conscientiousness was found to be significantly negatively correlated with Creativity with (r = –.

this was Conscientiousness which yielded a significant positive correlation of r = .27* –.40** Note: AP = Academic Performance.08 –.29* .10 –.12 –.31* .17 SEIRaven Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Gender –.22 –.14 .13 SEIWonderlic –.32* Baddeley –.03 .04 . Pearson's Correlation Coefficients between All Relevant Factors and Indications of Significance Ravens Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness SEI Ravens SEI Wonderlic SEI Baddeley SEC AP Creativity Gender .12 –.02 . SEI = Self-Estimated Intelligence.01.13 –. p < .12 .01 .04 .10 .17 .14 .30* –. H6: The results show that there was a significant positive correlation between AP and the Baddeley Reasoning Test scores measuring general and fluid intelligence (r = .13 .15 .28* –.47** .22 –.05 –. the Ravens and Wonderlic scores did not significantly correlate with AP.30.20 .29.27* .09 –.22 .24 . H5: One trait in the Big Five Personality group was indeed found to predict SEC.32* .06 .04 –.09 –. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC Table 1. However. p < .15 .14 SEC –.20 .21 Creativity .29* –.01 . *Significant at the <0.28* AP –.20 .15 –.07 –.00 .01 SEIBaddeley –.27* –.05 level (2-tailed).04 –.14 –.24 –.25* Wonderlic –.130 / FURNHAM.05 .31* .01 level (2-tailed).09 .019).03 . **Significant at the <0. .02 .03 .06 .04 –.10 .15 . SEC = SelfEstimated Creativity.07 .05 .33** –.09 .

p < .29. p < .001). The Wonderlic scores and SEI Baddeley together yielded a significant positive correlation.01). The SEI Baddeley and the Baddeley scores were significantly positively correlated (r = .02). personality as a whole did not predict Ravens scores (F(5. p < .27. despite the fact that Openness to Experience did yield a significant b coefficient of . It yielded a very significant positive correlation with AP (r = .04. . p < .36.05).40.01) and SEI Baddeley (r = .25. Results showed that this model did predict Creativity (F(5.26. 58) = 1. Gender and SEI Baddeley produced a highly significant positive correlation r = –. p < .01). H9: The results show that Creativity as measured by the Barron Welsh Scale was significantly and positively correlated with SEC (r = . p < .05).05) and 10. as the Ravens score was significantly positively correlated with SEI Wonderlic (r = .31. 2. p < . 58) = 2.01).27. H1: The first regression model investigated whether personality as a whole (of Big Five Factors) was found to significantly predict Creativity. H2: In this regression. H10: Gender and SEC yielded a significant negative correlation in this study with males having higher estimates of creativity than females (r = –.47. H8: There were highly significant results obtained in this section of the model.05). Results showed that Wonderlic and Baddeley scores were not predicted by personality as a whole or by any of its parts.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 131 H7: Conscientiousness was the only Big Five Personality Trait to be linked with AP. p < . although Conscientiousness was almost negatively significant to creativity (b = –.32.= .28. Openness to Experience was the only significant factor in this model (b = .05). The SEI Wonderlic and the Wonderlic scores were also very significantly positively correlated (r = . Table 2 shows the beta and t figures and significant b values are in bold. p < . p < . There were also some interesting cross-test correlations concerning intelligence and SEI. Multiple Regressions Multiple regressions were conducted on the factors that produced significant correlations to investigate whether these relationships were predictive. p < . It also allowed further analysis on different models that included whether several independent factors would predict a single dependent variable. The SEI Ravens and the Ravens scores were significantly positively correlated (r . p < .23). p < . p < .001).39. whereas SEI Ravens and SEI Wonderlic were both not significantly correlated with gender.32.50.6% of the variance in Creativity scores was accounted for by personality variables.

24 .28* .69 3. 62) = 17.11 –.06 –.08 –.09 .01 –.08 –.04 –.07 F(1. 62) = 5. R2 AP Reg model Adj.07 .21 4. 58) = 2. R2 F(5.92* .83* .17 .73 . 62) = 6.17 .39 .32* F(1.25 –.64 .47** .09 2.28 –.38 –.06 –.09 .63* .41 2.27 b b b Wonderlic Baddeley Creativity b .61 . 62) = 5.46 .09 .91 –1.41 2. R2 .06 F(5.211 –1. 58) = 1.23 2.Table 2.05 –.67* .67 –1.07 .60* .30 F(5.11 N E O A C 132 / FURNHAM.43 –.13 .14 –.93 –.40 .11 SEI R SEI W SEI B SEC Reg model Adj.95 t t t –. Simultaneous Multiple Regressions for Relevant Factors Identified by the Correlations with b and t Values Ravens b t –.01 –.59 –1.13 –.06 .58 2.82* .06 1.43** AP t 1.16 F(1.32* .80 .02 –. 62) = 4.34 –.19 –.03 –.50* .09 .70 2. 58) = 2.265* F(1. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC Reg model Adj.20 .29* F(1.14 –.29* .03 .10 –.

10 –.13 –.74 1. **Significant at the <0.15 b b b SEI Wonderlic SEI Baddeley SEC N E O A C Reg model Adj.17 –.08 .27* –2.52 .21 –1. / 133 . R2 Gender Reg model Adj.46 .05 level (2-tailed).69 –.84 –.03 .12 –.11 –. 62) = 7.21 .01 .10 F(1.08 .60 –1. R2 SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE *Significant at the <0.10 .78 –.06 –.05* .25 F(1.21 .01 level (2-tailed).38** .26 2.33* –.76 –1.SEI Ravens b t –. 58) = 2.22 –.49 1.60 –.07 .14 .44 F(5.32* t t t –.27 1.05 –. 62) = 5.10 2.04 .02 –.77 –.72 –.25 –.97 –.09 –.33 –.13 –.83* .09 –.33** –2.17 –.04 .

t = 3. Conscientiousness (b = . 58) = 2. Upon further analysis through regressions.024) and in particular the traits of Openness and Conscientiousness. p < . H5: The regression model shows that SEC is predicted by personality (F(5. For the Ravens. p < . p < . SEI Ravens accounted for 6.134 / FURNHAM. as measured by each of the three parametric tests.05) for 8.60.05).92.2% of the scores (F(1.8% of the variance in the model (F(1. p = . p < 0. p < . 62) = 5.001) and finally in the Baddeley. H4: There was a separate regression conducted for each SEI test for prediction by the personality traits. 62) = 4.01).01). H6: The regression model showed that Baddeley scores did significantly predict Academic performance (F(1. 62) = 7. H10: Gender was found to significantly predict SEC (F(1. although this was only for 6% of the variance. 62) = 17. Personality was found to account for 12. H7: After conducting a regression of personality as a predictor of AP.05) however the variance accounted for by SEC was only a rather small: 5. 62) = 6. However.05). it was found that gender accounted for 9.05.67.83. SEI Baddeley accounted for 8. p < . 58) = 2. it was deduced that SEI generally significantly predicted intelligence scores on all three tests.63. was predicted by the relevant SEI and personality together. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC H3: This was covered by the correlation in the previous section. Each model addressed a different intelligence test (see Table 3).83.30) was found to significantly predict AP (F(5. p < 0. Therefore males predictably gave significantly higher SEC than females.6% of the variance.2% of the variance in SEI Baddeley and was a very powerful significant predictor of it (F(1.5%.05) and this model accounted for 11. the Ravens and Wonderlic SEI scores were not significantly predicted by gender. with which there are both positive significant relationships.3% of the variance in the model. Three regression models were constructed to investigate whether intelligence. AP was not significantly correlated with or predicted by any other psychometric intelligence test used in this study. p < . in the Wonderlic test. 62) = 5. H8: Through regression analysis. and in particular.38. personality.7% of the variance in this model of SEC. 62) = 5. H9: A regression showed that SEC did significantly predict Creativity (F(1.43. The regressions show that there was no predictive relationship between personality as a whole or in factors with each of the SEIs. Model (b) showed that personality and SEI Wonderlic together . SEI Wonderlic accounted for a staggering 21.5% of the scores in the model (F(1.83.

p < . this was not true of model (a) predicting Ravens scores from SEI Ravens and personality and model (c) using SEI Baddeley and personality to predict Baddeley scores.05 (a) Predictors: Personality (N. E.44 1.1% of its variance.00 –.07 .48 –. intelligence and self-estimated intelligence predicted academic outcomes.34* t –.04 –.91* .99 Baddeley (c) b –. (b).81 2.26 –. This examined the extent to which personality. O. Model (e).57 F(5.62 .77 1. dependent variable: Ravens. A. However.05 . Multiple Regressions of Models (a).01). Table 4 shows that model (d) (Ravens) accounted for 18.0 Wonderlic (b) b –.05 –.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 135 Table 3.04 –. R2 –. both of which yielded non-significant results.88 . 58) = 1. 56) = 3.00 –.47** t –. (b) Predictors: Personality (N.28 –. The final Baddeley model (f) accounted for 19. regarding the Wonderlic. Conscientiousness was a highly influential positive factor in all three models here. 56) = 3.01) and that in this model. (c) Predictors: Personality (N.35 . A final regression addressed whether the Big Five personality factors and SEC together would predict Creativity as measured by the Barron Welsh scale (see .01). C) and SEI Baddeley. A. it should be noted that Conscientiousness and SEI Wonderlic were both significant factors in this model. 58) = 1.09.41. C) and SEI Ravens.39 3.17 –.54 .15 F(5. 56) = 3.15 . the variable Conscientiousness yielded very significant beta scores.23 . one for each intelligence test as they measure different types of intelligence as the criterion factor. p < .08 F(5.16.46 .35 –. 58) = 2.07 .4% of variance in AP and also yielded significant results in predicting AP (F(7. SEI was found to yield significant b figures.09 . dependent variable: Baddeley.11 . 58) = 2. E.18 . A. O. To further explore the data three regressions were conducted. C) and SEI Wonderlic.15 2. p < . and (c). E. dependent variable: Wonderlic. p < .4% of the variance (F(5. to be a significant predictor of Wonderlic scores and accounting for 15.06 .91.25* t –. O. however it was Conscientiousness and Baddeley scores which were the significant variables here.22 –. It should be noted that in all these 3 models.01) and accounted for 21.8% of AP variance and is significantly predictive of AP (F(7.73 1. Predicting Intelligence from SEI and Personality Ravens (a) b Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Relevant SEI (R/W/B) Regression model Adj. also significantly predicted AP (F(7.02 .

A. Results show that the model significant predicted Creativity (F(5.19 1. Personality.136 / FURNHAM.42** . 56) = 3.06 . (1998).39** 3.28* . E.19 (d) Predictors: Personality (N. The regression model indicated that Big Five personality as a model predicted psychometric Creativity (Barron Welsh) but in this analysis Openness to Experience was the only significant factor in this model.11 –.09** F(7. reflects major elements of Feist’s (1998) meta-analysis of creativity literature that found creative people tending to be open to new experiences and being negatively related to conscientiousness and conventionality.13 .43 –. p = .35 –1. the results of the correlations show that Creativity was significantly positively correlated with Openness to Experience. E. O. and SEC As predicted by H1.11 AP (e) t 1.03 . ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC Table 4.05 –.50.21 .56 F(7. A.89 b .43** .43 . Wonderlic and SEI Wonderlic (f) Predictors: Personality (N.40 . (e).16 .18 –1. C).41 2.84 . Baddeley and SEI Baddeley Table 5).19 .21 1.06 .07 .20 . and (f). Ravens and SEI Ravens.02 –.33 .51 . A. SEI.02 –. Conscientiousness was also significantly negatively correlated with Creativity as expected. Multiple Regressions of Models (d). 56) = 3.05) and that Conscientiousness was a significant negative predictor and SEC was a positive predictor in this model. O.16** . 56) = 3.17 1. Eleven and eight-tenths percent of the variance in Creativity was accounted for by the model.29* AP (f) t 1.46 . The ‘creative personality’ encapsulated in this study of someone who is very open to experience and low in conscientiousness.10 .10 . C).59 2. (e) Predictors: Personality (N.19 –. O. and Intelligence AP (d) b Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Relevant SEI (R/W/B) Relevant intelligence scores (R/W/B) Regression model Adj. C). Predicting Academic Performance from Personality.14 –.84 3. R2 t b .75 . replicating findings by McCrae (1987) as well as Rawlings et al. 58) = 2. Previous data suggest that both Openness and Conscientiousness are .26 –.41** F(7. E.08 . DISCUSSION Creativity.46 3.

perhaps factors such as confidence and modesty and also actual past creative performance. despite only accounting for 5. was Conscientiousness.21 . A. the latter more than the former (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham. which does not support the initial H5. contrary to predictions. SEC was found to have high predictive ability over Creativity scores on the Barron Welsh confirming H9.60 . such as A-level grades in Art or Music or less formal creative achievements which give the individual feedback on how creative they are.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 137 Table 5.43 –1. 58) = 2.5% of creativity variance. Regression Model Predicting Creativity from Personality and SEC Creativity (Barron Welsh) b Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness SEC Regression model Adj.33* t –. This result suggests that the participants were in general also good at estimating their own creativity or performance in the scales.98 –2. which was not predictive of SEC in the regression model but still positively correlated with it.12 Predictors: Personality (N. a diffident person who gives themselves a low SEC. 2004a). considering the negative correlation it yielded with Creativity. These past achievements and activities were not investigated in this study and perhaps future studies should attempt to do this in order to fully understand SEC. This result is somewhat surprising. The nature of SEC would probably involve a component of personality. E. The trait found to be most important in SEC in this study.19 . as it does in intelligence testing. R2 –.39 1.7% of variance in SEC.36** .50* .61 F(5.74 2. which had a positive predictive power in determining SEC. The results of the statistical analysis of SEC and personality indicate that highly Conscientious and Open people tended to have higher SECs. may under-perform and receive . This self-evaluative concept could also have an affect on the actual creative performance of an individual. Personality as a whole did predict SEC and accounted for 12. Openness was another important factor in this model. O.06 –. With regard to the Barron Welsh. C) and SEC Dependent Variable: Creativity (Barron Welsh) positively correlated with academic performance.13 –.

Intelligence. It is worth noting that both SEI and SEC produced positive relationships with Conscientiousness. and SEI Openness to Experience was again significantly correlated with the Raven’s scores (pure fluid intelligence) as predicted in H1. Two dominant factors emerged in the prediction of psychometric creativity. It could be noted that even though none of the figures were significant. Conscientiousness and SEI Baddeley produced a surprising significant positive correlation suggesting highly Conscientious people tended to rate their own intelligence higher. SEI Ravens and SEI Wonderlic did not achieve any significant correlations with any of the Big Five Personality Factors which was also incompatible with the hypothesis and much of previous research indicating that more Agreeable and Extraverted individuals tend to have lower SEIs due to the modesty factor (Furnham & Thomas. The factors identified in the model also reflect factors in Feist’s (1998) meta-analysis. Extraversion and Neuroticism both produced negative correlations with each of the intelligence scores. when the model of personality was put into a regression. replicating results by Zeidner and Matthew (2000) and Furnham and Thomas (2004). it replicates Furnham et al. The “self-confident” and “self-accepting” elements may also contribute to higher self-evaluative qualities such as SEC. suggesting a theme may have emerged if a larger sample had been used. however.138 / FURNHAM. which suggests that this trait taps positively into how a person evaluates themselves. even in such a low demand simplistic task. Personality. With regard to the lack of personality and Wonderlic links in this study. This positive ‘distortion’ of one’s own abilities may be due to the fact that highly conscientious people may expect higher intelligence scores because they felt they have the right focus to do well in these types of tests. 2004). the same two psychometric intelligence tests (Wonderlic and Baddeley) and the same personality test (NEO PI-R) was able to find that Baddeley scores and Conscientiousness were negatively linked although causality was not found. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC lower creativity ratings because they are not sure about their answers. . no link between either the Wonderlic (general intelligence) or the Baddeley (general and fluid intelligence) scores to any personality traits. despite a significant Openness coefficient. perhaps being conscientious and engaging in these behaviors would give a person more confidence about their performance. (2005) using a very similar sample. it was significant. Furnham et al. and do not trust their own opinions. Conscientiousness was a negative predictor and SEC a positive predictor. There was. The result for the Baddeley did not support part of this hypothesis there was a predicted relationship with Openness to Experience. However. (2004) findings but are in conflict with other research into general intelligence and personality that reported modest but significant relationships between the two.

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 139 H8 was confirmed by the results regarding SEI and actual intelligence scores. The Wonderlic scores were well predicted by SEI Wonderlic and personality in a model that accounted for 15. gave alternating conclusions.2% of the scores. However. the same relationship was not confirmed with regard to the Ravens and Baddeley scores and their models. It is still plausible that this relationship exists within the personality-intelligence structure due to some of the less than desirable methodological concerns of the study. The pattern found here implies that self-evaluation of one’s own intellectual abilities greatly affects the way a person actually performs on such a test and that issues such as confidence can enhance or impair performance. the opposite of what was predicted with males giving significantly higher SEC than females. The direction of this relationship was however. the actual score and the SEI was highly positively linked and regressions showed that SEI in each case was predictive of actual scores and intellectual abilities.4% of score variance. However. 2001). It was initially thought to be the other way around due to the social stereotypes imposed upon the sexes. an idea which is prominent in the research literature (Furnham et al. which indicates that males tend to over-estimate more than females about their own intelligence and creativity. Gender was also found to be a very powerful predictor of SEI Baddeley despite no significant difference in actual Baddeley scores and replicates findings of SEI across cultures and ages (Furnham. Gender Gender was found not only to be linked with SEC as predicted in H10. The three models. This was especially true in the Wonderlic test where SEI Wonderlic accounted for 21. It would seem that gender had the same effect on SEI as SEC. In all of these models. that females were more creative and males are more intelligent (at least logical). this result does indicate otherwise and can be logically explained by research showing males’ tendency to overestimate their own abilities more so than females who tend to underestimate their own abilities and show more modesty which is found to be prominent in academic settings. but also found to predict a small portion of it. This implies that the participants in this study had great insight into their own abilities and were generally very good at estimating their performance. However. each predicting a particular intelligence test score using the corresponding SEI and personality together. In each of the tests. 2000). This could be indicative of prominent themes regarding gender and ability in the culture the sample is from. SEI was found to yield significant b figures which shows that SEI by itself would predict scores but it is the personality factors that are less well linked with psychometric intelligence scores. the Ravens and Wonderlic SEI scores were not significantly predicted by gender.. .

1987) and reiterates the importance of conscientious behaviors such as focused and organized revised. Ravens. the results showed that Conscientiousness within a Personality model was clearly the strongest predictor of Academic Performance. This finding is in conjunction with other findings on Academic Performance (Diseth. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC Academic Performance The positive relationship found between AP and the Baddeley Reasoning Test scores. and that the Personality variables accounted for a rather high 11.4% of variance. This is also a reflection on the nature of the tasks and demands in the academic subject being evaluated. SEI and actual psychometric intelligence to predict AP and as predicted. in this model.140 / FURNHAM.1% of its variance where Conscientiousness and SEI Wonderlic were both highly dominant factors.3% of the variance in AP. This reasoning could explain why AP was not significantly correlated with or predicted by any other psychometric intelligence test used in this study. planning and doing homework in developing high academic results. SEI Ravens and Personality in combination accounted for 18. as predicted by H6. Conscientiousness was a highly influential positive factor in all three models here. Thus the nature of the academic subject or the job in which a person is being assessed could very well change the pattern of how psychometric intelligence or indeed creativity relates to the performance. Goff & Ackerman. 1992. but this result may be different if the sample had been taken from a different course. 2003. also significantly predicted AP and accounted for 21. are an indication that these two constructs are clsely linked and further analysis using a regression showed that Baddeley scores did significantly predict Academic Performance. McCrae. every one of these models were found to significantly predict AP. Another three models were constructed to further extend research addressed the ability of a combination of personality. accounting for 19. The Wonderlic scores. which is another indication of . for example art history. The Baddeley scores. The results would indicate that performing well at University would require high levels of fluid and general intelligence as measured in the Baddeley. Conscientiousness was again the dominant factor. in conjunction with SEI Wonderlic and Personality. it was Conscientiousness and Baddeley scores which were the significant variables here.8% of AP variance and is significantly predictive of AP. This relationship could be linked to crystallized intelligence as conscientious behaviors would perhaps lead to an increase in crystallized intelligence which is so dependent upon cultural and educational factors such as learning knowledge of things within a social-environmental context—much like academic education. teamed with SEI Baddeley and Personality significantly predicted AP. physics or computing. design. However. As hypothesized in H7. as the requirements of the course could mostly tap into the intelligence measured by Baddeley and not by the Ravens or Wonderlic.

(+) = positive relationship. (–) = negative relationship. O = Openness to Experience. Results of study in initially hypothesized model with directional indications (H1-H11). (gf) = fluid intelligence. Note: C = Conscientiousness. (g) = general intelligence.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 141 Figure 2. .

142 / FURNHAM. M. F. 2001). 1997). Conscientiousness is positively associated with academic performance but negatively correlated with creativity. 78. people are reasonably able to predict their intelligence and creativity scores. NY: Creative Education Foundation. & Heggestad. (1989). 219-245. (1969). Second. Intelligence. Growing up creatively. One issue is where people derive some idea of how creative they are. An interesting question is to what extent these self-estimates predict involvement in creative activities as well as the quality of the creative product. as has been consistently found in the literature on self-assessed intelligence (Furnham. That is. Creative person and creative process. 121. Moutafi. and Palliel (2004) have a compensatory theory of Conscientiousness at university which suggests that comparatively less bright people have to become more conscientious to succeed in a competitive environment. P. Perhaps it is the subfactor of conscientious-like diligence and dutifulness that account for the negative correlations with creativity. D. Third. personality. Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. What are the practical implications of this study? First. & Mount. 10. REFERENCES Ackerman. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC its importance as a trait in Academic Performance research (Musgrave-Marquart.. 111-118. L. 1995). Baddeley. 341-342. There are inevitably those who over and those who underestimate their ability. (1997). That is the desire for order and the belief that success comes through deliberate application of effort means that Conscientiousness tends to be negatively correlated with creativity. E. Furnham. New York: Holt. what influences their self-estimated creativity. A. Psychological Bulletin . K.. Indeed there is an extensive literature to suggest that highly creative individuals are often poorly self-disciplined and indeed famous for the lack of Conscientiousness (Eysenck. M. despite little evidence that that is a fact. Bromley & Dalley. This may mean that often highly creative individuals do not do particularly well in standard academic institutions. R. Psychonomic Science. Equally important perhaps are the consequences of one’s self-estimator of creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology. males tend to give higher self-estimated creativity scores than females. Barron. Figure 2 shows the findings of the study in the context of the initially proposed model. Barrick. This creative-test feedback may be important. This has implications for vocational guidance and assessment. R. A 3 minute reasoning test based on grammatical transformation. (1968). (1993). yet it is acknowledged that there are not many robustly validated psychometric tests of creativity. Amabile. Rinehart and Winston. Buffalo. and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. .

C. 38. 10. S. Personality and the Barron Welsh Art Scale. 837-838. Multivariate Behavioral Research . R. A possible model to understand the personality-intelligence interface.. (2004a). T.. De Raad. R. . Journal of Research in Personality. J. Chamorro-Premuzic. Genius: The natural history of creativity. 17. (1985). (2004a). 319-338. A. 18. 88. & McCrae. (1952). Cattell. Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. Cambridge. Estimating one’s own personality and intelligence scores. S. J. 505-513. & Furnham. 45. & Furnham. T. Personality and Individual Differences. (1992). R. T. 24. 33. Journal of Psychology. 16. Chamorro-Premuzic. (1999). & Eysenck. Personality and creativity. Odessa. Abilities: Their structure. T. A. A. Diseth. 149-170. 290-309. & Furnham. (20030. A. A. (2003a). M. (1995). Parents’ estimates of their own and their children’s multiple intelligences. & Welsh.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 143 Barron. J. 185-200. H. Chamorro-Premuzic. Self-estimates of intelligence: Culture and gender difference in self and other estimates of both general (g) and multiple intelligences. H. Brand. 76. (1993). A. & Moutafi. Eysenck. K. J. The relationship between estimated and psychometric personality and intelligence scores. cognitive style and academic achievement. Furnham. (1981).. 2004-2005. Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal samples. Chamorro-Premuzic. Furnham. Eysenck. 249-264. T. A. (1994). A. & Chamorro-Premuzic. (2004). Personality traits in learning and education. Journals of Research in Personality. (1999). A. M. 8. (2001). A. growth and action . C. UK: Cambridge University Press. 299-310. comparison. G. 199-203.. J. Furnham. personality and development. Furnham. G. (2003b). Self theories: Their role in motivation.. A. Personality traits and academic examination performance. A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. B. T. 2. Furnham. W. British Journal of Developmental Psychology . Chamorro-Premuzic. T. Educational Research. New York: Springer. 95. 95. (1998). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.. & Takemoto-Chock. (2000). Perceptual and Motor Skills. N. Eysenck... Dweck. British Journal of Psychology. (1971). F. 31.. H. 149-160. (2004b). Approaches to learning.. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. J. Personality and Social Psychological Review . 237-250. Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis. Revised NEO Personality Inventory manual. Cognition and Personality. European Journal of Personality. Art judgment: A measure related to both personality and intelligence? Imagination. European Journal of Psychology. & Furnham. 583-594. 407-408. British Journal of Psychology.” European Journal of Personality.. Feist. T. Costa. 1381-1405. 37. and interpretation of six major studies.. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 381-394. B. New York: Plenum. Digman. & Furnham. (1996). Open to experience—Closed to intelligence: Why the “Big Five” are really the “Comprehensive Six. Artistic perception as a possible factor in personality style: Its measurement by a figure preference test.

self-estimated and psychometric intelligence. G. R. R. & Costa. Creativity. 919-924. 37. 84. (1996). International Journal of Selection and Assessment . McKenzie. 13. 81-90. 52. Goff. 12. Personality and Individual Differences. McCown. R. Journal of Personality. (2004). P. 20. Gardner.. Gotz. Hembree.. (1988). R. 58. Gough. Personality. Personality and Individual Differences.. T. Jones (Eds. 189-203. K. Creativity and the five-factor model. (1987). L. primary process cognition. Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience.. & Ackerman. A. & Thomas.. 3-92. 8. Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice.. 409-414. T. 17. K. W. Parents’ gender and personality and estimates of their own and their children’s intelligence. personality and education as predictors of unemployment in young people. R. (1970). The nature and nurture of creative talent. (1979). (1991). A. Briggs.. Gabora. 30.). M. 537-552... L. Amplifying phenomenal information: Toward a fundamental theory of consciousness. Personality and chronic procrastination by university students during an academic examination period. (1993). H. T.. (1983). Handbook of personality psychology. R. effects. Palo Alto. In S. P. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . Journal of Consciousness Studies. R. (1987). R. 11-14. R. O. ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC Furnham. & Chamorro-Premuzic. California psychological inventory administrator’s guide. New York: Basic Books. Perceptual and Motor Skills. (1984). D. T. and personality. (1993). L. Personality and intelligence: Gender. Hogan. Personality and Individual Differences. New York: Basic Books. R. 887-903. Journal of Research in Personality . A. S.. W. Chamorro-Premuzic. (2005). Creativity. the big five. 61. (1989). 509-515. & Johnson. Home background. (1996). CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.. (1997). 5. T. McKee-Walker. McCrae.144 / FURNHAM. R. and treatment of test anxiety. J. Folk concepts. Personality and Individual Differences . Correlates. 49. Furnham. . Personality characteristics of successful artists. Personality and Individual Differences . intelligence. Personality-intelligence relations: Assessing typical intellectual engagement.. natural language and psychological constructs: The California Psychological Inventory and the fivefactor model. 52. Furnham. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. R.. 1-26.. P.. Journal of Educational Psychology . L. A. & Moutafi. Inc. J. C. J. 413-415. 484-495. H. R. & Dailey. & Magee. 44-77. McCrae. (1999). (1992). 36. P. & W. (2004b). & Broyles. Neuroticism and academic achievement: The Furneaux factor. H. divergent thinking and openness to experience. McCrae. 549-557. 1258-1265. Frames of mind. intelligence and art. New York: Academic Press. Gardner. S. McCrae. & Costa. & Piedmont. (1987). Costa. Hampson. & Gotz. 10. Lynn. A. causes. L. A. J. Review of Educational Research. Martindale. King. H. 705-715. M. American Psychology. McKinnon. Personality and Individual Differences .

Personality. strategies. J. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality . M. and aesthetic preference: Comparing psychoticism. Intelligence and personality. H. (1998). & Crump. Richardson. 279-298. creativity. 8. & Lubart. D. E. Coping with examination stress: Resources. European Journal of Personality. Inc. Lysy. G. The Wonderlic Personnel Test. sensation seeking. Bromley. Demographic and personality preditors of intelligence: A study using the NEO-Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type indicator. D. Libertyville. Paulus. J.. A. J. In R. Newsday Ideas.. outcomes. (1992).ac. A. 1-11. Court.. (2004). J. & Matthews. P. Zeidner. J. Direct reprint requests to: Prof. J. Burns. Furnham. Handbook of intelligence (2nd ed. (1983).. L. Gibbs (Ed. Personality and Individual Differences . C. T. R. J.).. J. Wells. R. (Ed. The myth of creativity. F. G. & Matthews.SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 145 Moutafi.. E. M. 37. & Raven. S. Handbook of creativity. IL: Wonderlic Inc. 525-554. W.)... 176. A. Anxiety. academic attribution. 1013-1022.). & Dalley. M. (1986). S. 66.. Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence. I. D. L. New York: Cambridge University Press. S. Raven. Weisberg. Stress and Coping. (1998).). Personality. (2000). E. 153-178.. G. and openness to experience. B. A. Improving student learning through assessment and evaluation. T. schizotypy. Twomey. Empirical Studies of the Arts . (1995). Wonderlic. Sternberg. 79-94.furnham@ucl. & Morris. Furnham. M. UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates... Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective. (1997)..uk . (1995). D. Furnham Department of Psychology University College London 26 Bedford Way London WC1H OAP e-mail: a. 501-511. Moutafi. S. Manual for the Barron-Welsh Art Scale. Sternberg (Ed. Using questionnaires to evaluate student learning. C. Ltd. Rawlings. 12. In G. Oxford Centre for Staff Development. 16. & Palliel. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. and substance use as predictors of academic achievement in college students.. (1987). New York: Cambridge University Press. Musgrave-Marquart. 1. & Yik.. J. Hove. R. London: Lewis. J. New York: Free Press. (1995). Welsh. Sternberg.. (1999). Self-report measures of intelligence: Are they useful as proxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality. M. (1994). (2003). Consulting Psychologists Press. Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales (Section 3)—Standard Progressive Matrices (1983 edition). Zeidner. Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity..

.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.