Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Intelligence 36 (2008) 564 – 573

Intellectual competence and academic performance: Preliminary

validation of a model ☆
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic ⁎, Adriane Arteche
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom
Received 10 November 2007; received in revised form 18 December 2007; accepted 3 January 2008
Available online 7 February 2008

Abstract

The present study provides a preliminary empirical test of [Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model to
understand the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249−264], [Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A.
(2006a). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology,
10, 251–267]) model of intellectual competence, which conceptualized an integrative framework for understanding the ability and non-
ability determinants of academic performance (AP). Specifically, we set out to test whether Neuroticism and Extraversion affect self-
assessed intelligence (SAI); whether SAI mediates the effects of Neuroticism and Extraversion on AP; and whether Openness (positively)
and Conscientiousness (negatively) mediate the effects of gf on crystallized ability (gc) and AP. Sex differences were also examined.
Using structural equation modelling and analyzing 4-year longitudinal data from a sample of 473 UK university students (316 men and
157 women), wide support was found for the model. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed in relation to the non-ability and
ability determinants of individual differences in educational achievement.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Personality; Intelligence; Intellectual competence; Academic performance; Self-assessed intelligence

In recent years, differential psychologists have shown a
growing interest in the relationship between ability and
non-ability constructs, notably the personality-intelligence
interface (Ackerman, & Beier, 2003; Ackerman, &
Wolman, 2007; Ashton, Lee, Vernon, & Jang, 2000;
Austin et al., 2002; Bates, & Rock, 2004a; Bates &
Shieles, 2003; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furham, & Moutafi,
2004; Collis & Messick, 2001; Demetriou, Kyriakides, &
☆
The present study was supported by a British Academy Grant to
the first author and by a Brazilian Ministry of Education (CAPES)
Grant to the second author.
⁎ Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths,
University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW, London, United
Kingdom. Tel.: +44 207 919 7885.
E-mail address: pss02tc@gold.ac.uk (T. Chamorro-Premuzic).
0160-2896/$ - see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.01.001
Avraamidou, 2003; Gignac, 2005; Harris, 2004; Wolf &
Ackerman, 2005). This trend is in stark contrast with a
longstanding tradition in differential psychology to
conceptualize personality and intelligence as essentially
different and unrelated domains of individual differences
(Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007; McCrae, 1994; Webb, 1915;
Zeidner & Matthews, 2000), though earlier studies had
shown sporadic interest in the relationship between
abilities and personality (Eysenck, 1971; Eysenck, &
White, 1964; Jensen, 1962, 1973; Myers & McCaulley,
1985; Skaklofske, 1985), with some eminent figures in the
field regarding the constructs as inextricably intertwined
(Cattell, 1957; Eysenck, 1967; Guilford, 1959).
Although correlations between ability tests (which
measure maximal performance) and personality
 T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Arteche / Intelligence 36 (2008) 564–573
inventories (which assess typical performance) are at best
moderate (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Chamorro-
Premuzic & Furnham, 2004; Holland, Dollinger, Hol-
land, & MacDonald, 1995), the fact that both personality
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a,b, see O'Connor
& Paunonen, 2007 for a recent meta-analysis of the Big
Five as predictors of post-secondary educational achieve-
ment) and intelligence (Brody, 1997; Deary, Whiteman,
Starr, Whalley, & Fox, 2004; Gottfredson, 2004; Jensen,
1980; Petrill & Wilkerson, 2000; Thorndike, 1985) predict
academic performance (AP) has inspired the development
of integrative models for understanding the broad
determinants of individual differences in educational
achievement and conceptualizing causal paths among
various predictors of AP that “bridge the gap” between
personality and intelligence. As Reeve, Meyer and
Bonaccio (2006, p. 389) argued, “correlational indepen-
dence” and “nomological interdependence” are not
mutually exclusive, which begs the question of whether,
how, and to what degree different ability and non-ability
predictors of AP are related. Furthermore, the unique
contribution of ability and non-ability to the prediction of
AP should also be established. Despite the predictive
power of cognitive ability (especially g) in educational
settings, “there is still anywhere from 51% to 75% of the
variance in academic achievement that is unaccounted for
by measures of general cognitive ability alone” (Rhode, &
Thompson, 2007, p.83; see also Chamorro-Premuzic &
Furnham, 2005; Jencks, 1979; Jensen, 1998, and Mack-
intosh, 1998, for reviews of the topic). Thus “for the
acquisition of knowledge, personality attributes, like
motivation and learning styles, are very important”
(Rinderman, & Neubauer, 2004, p.587).
1. Intellectual competence: integrating ability and
non-ability predictors of AP
An explicit attempt to answer the question of how
different predictors of AP are related is Chamorro-Premuzic
and Furnham's (2004, 2005, 2006a) theory of intellectual
competence (IC), which draws upon Cattell's (1971, 1998;
Horn & Noll, 1997) and Ackerman's (1996) distinction
between fluid abilities (gf; intelligence as process or
reasoning) and crystallized abilities (gc; intelligence as
knowledge).1 Moreover, IC starts from the premise that AP
is the criterion par excellence – the “raison d'etre” (Deary,
Strand, Smith, & Fernandez, 2007, p.13) – for validating
1 affect AP in that they lead to and sustain higher levels of
Although the Horn-Cattell model does not include a general factor
g, there is now compelling evidence to support the interpretation of g
and gf as conceptually equivalent (Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990;
Undheim, & Gustafsoon, 1987; see also Neubauer, 1997).
565
intelligence (see also Binet, 1905; Rinderman & Neubauer,
2004, p.575; Spearman, 1904), though occupational out-
comes are also important (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
According to IC, performance-related non-ability traits,
such as Neuroticism and Extraversion (for a summary
see Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005, pp. 49–54;
Zeidner, 1995), can affect psychometrically measured and
self-assessed intelligence (SAI), whereas investment non-
ability traits, such as Openness and Conscientiousness
(but see also Typical Intellectual Engagement; Goff &
Ackerman, 1992), mediate the effects of ability on know-
ledge acquisition, facilitating or hindering intellectual
development. There are therefore personality effects on
the measurement and assessment of intelligence. Specifi-
cally, higher Neuroticism, as well as lower Extraversion,
would attenuate the effects of ability on both psychome-
trically-tested and self-estimated intelligence, causing
individuals to under-perform on intelligence tests and to
rate their ability levels lower. Conversely, stable and
extraverted individuals would estimate their intelligence
higher, and even score higher on some ability tests, than
their neurotic and introverted counterparts, respectively,
without actually being brighter (Bates, & Rock, 2004a;
Dobson, 2000; Moutafi, Furnham, & Tsaousis, 2006).
Whereas intelligence differences between extraverted
and introverted individuals, on one hand, and neurotic and
stable on the other, seem negligible (Bates, & Rock,
2004a), there is evidence for Extraversion and Neuroti-
cism differences in SAI (Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furn-
ham, 2005, 2006a), a construct that has independent
effects (of tested cognitive ability) on AP (Chamorro-
Premuzic, Harlaar, & Plomin, submitted for publication;
Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006b). Moreover, the
fact that sex differences in SAI outweigh sex differences in
tested abilities (Fergusson, & Horwood, 1997) and even
contradict sex differences in school performance, where
girls tend to outperform boys (Deary et al., 2007; Hyde &
Kling, 2001) begs the question of what – if not cognitive
ability or previous AP – determines sex differences in
SAI. According to IC, part of the answer is persona-
lity, notably Neuroticism and Extraversion (Chamorro-
Premuzic & Furnham, 2006a).
On the other hand, individual differences in Openness to
Experience, a trait associated with higher intellectual
curiosity, creativity, and liberal attitudes (McCrae &
Costa, 1997), as well as Conscientiousness, a trait which
assesses individuals' proneness to work hard, be organized
and achievement-driven (Costa & McCrae, 1992), seem to
typical performance or intellectual investment, focusing on
skill development and knowledge acquisition (Cattell,
1971; Reeve & Hakel, 2000). Furthermore, significant
566 T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Arteche / Intelligence 36 (2008) 564–573

links between these two traits and ability measures
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005) suggest that the
effects of ability on AP may be partly accounted for
by Conscientiousness and Openness. Thus Chamorro-
Premuzic and Furnham (2006a) argued that higher Con-
scientiousness would in part be explained as a compensa-
tory “strategy” for lower gf, meaning those individuals less
capable of abstract reasoning and faster learning would
become more organized, dutiful, and self-motivated in
order to attain higher performance at school, university, and
work (especially in highly competitive settings). Conver-
sely, people with higher gf may “afford” to be less con-
scientious and yet attain similar levels of performance. On
the other hand, Openness, which is correlated with gc
rather than gf (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Bates, &
Shieles, 2003) would affect AP independently of gf. Thus
“Openness is independent of g, but [that Openness] can
influence the gain of knowledge via its effects on interest
and Openness to Experience” (Bates, & Shieles, 2003,
p.278; see also Ackerman & Goff, 1994; Rocklin, 1994).
Despite the potential importance of the IC model for
interpreting associations among self-estimated and
psychometrically-tested abilities, personality traits, and
AP, studies have yet to provide empirical support for this
framework; in particular, studies that simultaneously
examine all the variables in the IC model have not been
conducted thus far. Accordingly, the present study set
out to explore the full IC model using 4-year long-
itudinal data from 473 UK university students. The
hypothesized model – including individual hypotheses
for each parameter – is graphically depicted in Fig. 1.
As shown in Fig. 1, we predict there will be significant
sex differences in gf (H1a) (Lynn & Irwing, 2004, in press;
Nyborg, 2005; Strand, Deary & Smith, 2006), SAI (H1b)
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006a), and Neuroti-
cism (H1c) (Feingold, 1994). Moreover, gf will have
significant negative effects on Conscientiousness (H2a),
but positive effects on gc (H2b), SAI (H2c), and AP (H2d).
Negative effects of gf on Conscientiousness are predicted
in line with Ackerman and Heggestad (1997), Moutafi,
Furnham, and Crump (2006), Moutafi, Furnham, and
Paltiel (2006), and Furnham, Moutafi and Chamorro-
Premuzic (2005). The positive effect of gf on gc is expec-
ted on the basis of investment theories of intelligence
(Ackerman, 1996; Cattell, 1971, 1998; Chamorro-Premuzic
& Furnham, 2005) and well-established correlations bet-
ween these two aspects of intelligence (Carroll, 1993).
Positive effects of gf on SAI would be congruent with

Fig. 1. The hypothesized Intellectual Competence model linking observed intelligence (gf and gc), self-assessed intelligence (SAI), Extraversion (E),
Neuroticism (N), Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C) and academic performance (AP) (E1 to E7 = error terms associated with the variables).
 T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Arteche / Intelligence 36 (2008) 564–573
previous findings (see Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2005, for a summary) and the idea that individuals are
capable of estimating their own abilities relatively accu-
rately (Ackerman & Wolman, 2007). Significant effects
of gf on AP will replicate a well-documented correla-
tion between g and measures of academic achievement
(Brody, 1997; Koenig, Frey, & Determan, in press; Petrill
& Wilkerson, 2000). On the other hand, we predict that
gc (H2f) and SAI (H2f) will affect AP. The effects of
gc on AP are well-established (Chamorro-Premuzic &
Furnham, 2005; Jensen, 1998), whereas positive effects of
SAI on AP would replicate recent findings by Spinath,
Spinath, Harlaar and Plomin (2006), Chamorro-Premuzic
and Furnham (2006b) and Chamorro-Premuzic, Harlaar,
and Plomin (submitted of publication). Indeed, the related
constructs of self-concepts of ability and academic self-
efficacy have been longitudinally and causally linked to
AP (Denissen, Zarrett, and Eccles, 2007; Marsh, 2007). In
regards to exogeneous personality effects, Conscientious-
ness is expected to positively affect AP (H3a) (consistently
with O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Noftle & Robins,
2007), and gc (H3b) (in line with Chamorro-Premuzic &
Furnham, 2004; Goff & Ackerman, 1992), whereas
Openness is hypothesized to affect AP (H3c). Finally,
Extraversion (H3d) and Neuroticism (negatively, H3e) are
expected to have an effect on SAI (in line with Chamorro-
Premuzic and Furnham, 2006a).
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants were 473 students (316 male, 157 female)
from three UK universities. Their age ranged from 18–25
(M = 20.31, SD = 3.43 years) at initial time of testing. All
students were fluent in English and took part in the study
in exchange of course-credits. Students were fully
debriefed and if requested feedback on their personality
and ability test scores was provided individually by the
research assistants.
2.2. Procedure
Participants were tested in a quiet lecture hall, in groups
of 50–70 students who were supervised by four trained
experimenters. Test administration was counterbalanced
across groups to minimize order effects. All psychometric
data were collected during the first week of the first
academic year. AP data were obtained from the examina-
tion offices throughout the four subsequent years and
merged to the overall database by an external administrator
who removed all identification from the file.
567
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Psychometric intelligence
Psychometric intelligence was operationalized in terms
of gf, as measured by the Ravens Advanced Progressive
Matrices test (APM) and gc, as measured by the Mill Hill
Vocabulary Scale (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998). The
APM test is a well-established measure of abstract
reasoning and is widely regarded as one of the most
reliable tests of g (Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990; Undheim,
& Gustafsoon, 1987). Test takers are presented with a
number of items displaying abstract patterns of shapes
organized according to logical rules in a 3 ×3 matrix where
one of the cells is empty. In order to complete the sequence
correctly, participants must identify the implicit rule by
which items are organized and choose the correct item from
6 to 8 possible alternatives. Item difficulty increases
progressively. The APM has been found to correlate in the
region of r= .60 with the American College Test (ACT)
(Koenig et al., in press); the manual reports a test–retest
reliability of .91 for an adult population. In the present study
the APM was administered in 9 min due to time-limitations.
The Mill Hill Vocabulary scales was administered in line
with the 1998 version of the manual and an overall gc score
was obtained by calculating the mean standardized residual
from sets A and B. The manual reports a test–re-test
reliability of over .90 for adult populations (Raven et al.,
1998).
2.3.2. Personality traits
Personality traits were assessed via the Neuroticism–
Extraversion–Openness–Personality–Inventory-Revised
(NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). This 240-item self-
report questionnaire presents respondents with a series of
statements to which they agree or disagree on a 5-point-
scale Likert-type scale (ranging from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree”). The questionnaire assessed a total of
five super-traits, namely Neuroticism, Extraversion, Open-
ness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, which are
equivalent to other five factor taxonomies (Digman &
Inouye, 1986; Goldberg, 1999; Tupes & Christal, 1961/
1992) and 6 underlying sub-facets underlying each of these
super-traits. Evidence for the reliability and validity of this
instrument has been reported elsewhere (Chamorro-
Premuzic & Furnham, 2005; Costa & McCrae, 1992;
Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003).
2.3.3. Self-assessed intelligence (SAI)
Self-assessed intelligence (SAI) was assessed through
a five-item inventory that requires participants to
estimate their mathematical, spatial, verbal, and logical
abilities, as well as their general knowledge, on a
568 T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Arteche / Intelligence 36 (2008) 564–573

Table 1
Bivariate correlations among measures
M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. ZAP 63.38 8.32 .18⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ −.03 − .10⁎ .01 .13⁎⁎ .07 .24⁎⁎
2. SAI 114.04 17.58 – .11⁎ .07 .20⁎⁎ –.29⁎⁎ − .02 − .02 − .10⁎ − .08
3. gf 20.61 6.71 – .34⁎⁎ .03 .04 .01 − .05 − .01 − .09⁎
4. gc 59.97 7.69 – −.03 .03 .07 .05 .06 .09⁎
5. Gender (316 male, – − .11⁎ − .05 − .01 − .02 .01
157 female)
6. Neuroticism 101.33 24.97 – − .11⁎ .05 .13⁎ .11⁎
7. Extraversion 122.89 22.49 – .43⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎
8. Openness 131.28 21.03 – .17⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎
9. Agreeableness 115.05 20.86 – .34⁎⁎
10. Conscientiousness 111.61 25.63 –
⁎ p b 0.05, ⁎⁎p b 0.01.

standardized IQ bell curve (i.e., a normal distribution of scores were highly inter-correlated a single underlying
scores showing appropriate labels and a Mean of 100 component was identified via PCA (variance accounted
and SD of 15 points for the overall population). As for = 41.9%) and retained for further analyses (see

Fig. 2. The final Intellectual Competence model linking observed intelligence (gf and gc), self-assessed intelligence (SAI), Neuroticism (N),
Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C) and academic performance (AP).
 T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Arteche / Intelligence 36 (2008) 564–573 569

Table 2
Mediation tests
IV Mediator DV β IV to DV direct β IV to mediator β mediator to DV β IV to DV indirect Sobel test Z Mediation
C Gc AP .24 .09 .21 .22 1.97⁎ Partial
N SAI AP − .10 − .29 .18 −.05 −3.42⁎⁎ Full
gf Gc AP .23 .34 .21 .18 4.44⁎⁎ Partial
gf C AP .23 − .09 .24 .26 −2.03⁎ Partial
gf SAI AP .23 .11 .18 .21 2.29⁎ Partial
Sex N SAI .20 − .11 − .29 .17 2.26⁎ Partial
Sex gf SAI .20 .03 .11 .19 0.78 –
Note. ⁎p b 0.05. ⁎⁎p b 0.01. Abbreviations: IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable; C = Conscientiousness; N = Neuroticism; SAI =
self-assessed intelligence.

Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006a,b for studies
using similar instruments and scoring procedure).
2.3.4. Academic performance (AP)
Academic performance (AP) was collected throughout
4 years and operationalized in terms of final examination
grades (see Noftle & Robins, 2007), which – in comparison
to standardized achievement tests used as predictors of AP
– have the advantage of presenting real-life achievement
data (Rindermann & Neubauer, 2004). Every year, students
completed a number of exams (between 5 and 6 papers per
year) which were double-marked blindly by different staff
members using a 0–100 point scale where 35 represents a
“pass”, any mark below 35 is a “fail”; marks between 50
and 59 represent a “lower second class” degree; marks
between 60 and 69 represent an “upper second class”
degree; and any mark of 70 or higher represents a “first
class” degree (distinction). For the present sample the
average mark was M= 63.38, (SD =8.32) which is in line
with typical UK university grade distributions.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive and zero-order correlations
Table 1 shows the descriptive and zero-order
correlation coefficients for all measures. AP was Z-
transformed in order to standardize the raw measure. As
shown, the strongest correlates of AP were Conscien-
tiousness and gf, followed by gc, SAI, Openness and
Neuroticism. Significant correlations were also found
between SAI and gf, gender and Neuroticism.
3.2. IC model
Structural Equation Modeling through maximum-
likelihood estimation was conducted with the AMOS
5.0 software (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) in order to test a
Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham's (2005, 2006a) path
model of IC (see Fig. 2). Neuroticism, Openness and
Conscientiousness were modeled as latent variables and
sub-factors (primary traits) with factor loadings lower than
.40 were excluded from the model. For Neuroticism the
observed sub-facets were N1 = anxiety, N3= depression,
N4 =self-consciousness, and N6 =vulnerability. For Open-
ness the three sub-facets retained were O2 =aesthetics,
O5 =ideas, and O6= values. For Conscientiousness the
sub-facets included in the model were C2 = order,
C4= achievement-striving and C5= self-discipline. Extra-
version was deleted from the final model due to its low
correlation with SAI (r =.01), whereas the path from sex to
gf was also removed as it was not significant (st.β =.02).
None of the remaining paths from the hypothesized model
were modified, but correlations among Big Five traits were
allowed as these factors were found to be significantly,
albeit modestly, correlated (see Table 1). Sobel's tests of
mediation (Sobel, 1982; see Table 2) were performed
wherever mediation conditions were met (Baron & Kenny,
1986). The good-indexes parameters confirmed a well-
fitting model1 [χ2.(81) = 164.812, p b 0.01; GFI = 0.95;
P GFI = 0.64; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.04(90%CI:
0.03;0.05); RMR = 2.04; AIC = 242.812; CN =326].
As expected, gf (H2d) and Conscientiousness (H3a)
had positive effects on AP. Supporting H2c and H2f, SAI
partially mediated the effect of gf on AP (Z = 2.18,
p b 0.02) and gc partially mediated the effect of
Conscientiousness on AP (Z = 1.92, p = 0.05; supporting
H3b and H2e). In line with H3c, Openness had a direct
effect on AP. Moreover, gf had a negative effect on
Conscientiousness (H2a) and a positive effect on gc
(H2b). The effect of Neuroticism on AP was fully
mediated by SAI (Z = 3.09, p b 0.001), with Neuroticism
negatively affecting SAI (H3d). Finally, sex differences
in SAI (H1b) and Neuroticism (H1c) were also
confirmed, though the hypothesized effect of sex on gf
was not supported (H1a).
570 T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Arteche / Intelligence 36 (2008) 564–573
4. Discussion
The present study set out to empirically validate the IC
model put forward by Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham
(2004, 2005, 2006a). Support was found for most of the
paths underlying the IC model, which achieved good fit
after Extraversion was removed on the basis of its non-
significant effects on SAI. Indeed, 12 out of 14 of the
predicted mediational paths were supported by the data.
In line with Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2006a),
the effects of gf on AP were partly mediated by
Conscientiousness – adding support to the “compensa-
tion” hypothesis. Thus individuals who are quicker, more
efficient, abstract thinkers (basically those capable of
learning new things faster), are lower in achievement-
striving, order and self-discipline, leading to lower AP.
Also in line with the IC model, SAI and gc partly mediated
the effects of gf on AP, suggesting that gf leads to higher
academic achievement partly because it is linked to higher
self-estimates of intelligence and higher gc levels. At the
same time, SAI was also affected by sex (males rated their
ability higher than did females) and Neuroticism (stable
individuals rated their ability higher). Moreover, SAI fully
mediated the effect of Neuroticism on AP, such that, when
individual differences in self-estimates of intelligence are
accounted for, higher Neuroticism (i.e., anxiety, depres-
sion, self-consciousness, and vulnerability) no longer leads
to lower AP. These results highlight the importance of SAI
as a mediator of the effects of personality (Neuroticism)
and ability (gf) on AP. Furthermore, results showed that
Neuroticism fully mediated the effects of sex on SAI,
indicating that females' self-estimates of ability are lower
than males' self-estimates only because of Neuroticism
differences between women and men (specifically women
scoring higher on Neuroticism).
In regards to Openness, an independent effect of this
trait on AP was found. Interestingly, Openness was neither
significantly associated with gf (which is in line with Bates
& Shieles, 2003; Bates & Rock, 2004b) nor with gc (which
is inconsistent with Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997),
indicating that individual differences in aesthetics, values
and ideas (all of which represent intellectual curiosity) were
independent of cognitive ability levels, though they
affected AP. However, as indicated by the correlations
Openness was modestly but significantly associated with
both ability measures. Thus only when other variables were
taken into account did the links between Openness and
cognitive ability measures drop to non-significant. More-
over, Conscientiousness had a more prominent “invest-
ment” role than Openness, as the former, but not the latter,
was associated with higher gc.
Naturally, there are limitations to the present study.
First, personality traits were modelled on the basis of
selected sub-facets, such that it may be questionable
(especially for Openness and Conscientiousness sub-
facets) whether the latent variables included in the model
were only a fractional measure of these traits. Yet, it has
been recently emphasized that analysis of the person-
ality-ability and personality-performance correlations
would strongly benefit from an examination of primary
rather than super-traits (O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007;
Reeve et al., 2006). Thus even if the final model did not
assess the full breadth of the relevant Big Five traits it is
arguably informative as to the facets that relate most
strongly to ability and AP.
Second, the measures of cognitive ability examined in
our current study also suffered from limitations. Clearly,
the APM does not measure the full breadth of gf and, even
more clearly, the Mill Hill Vocabulary test is only a partial
measure of gc and is substantially g-saturated. Thus
research in this area should consider using multiple mea-
sures of these constructs as well as removing g-related
variance from gc in order to measure the desires latent
constructs more purely and accurately (Reeve et al., 2006).
Third, it is noteworthy that effect sizes were generally
small (r b.30), indicating that the hypothesized associa-
tions – especially links between cognitive ability and
personality traits, are typically weak, even if statistically
significant. This is in line with previous larger studies on
the personality and intelligence interface (Ackerman &
Heggestad, 1997; Reeve et al., 2006), and partly explains
the longstanding assumption that these two major
constructs of individual differences are independent (see
Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005, for a review).
However small these associations are, they ought to be
interpreted, though, and even where correlational inde-
pendence is observed nomological dependence is still an
option (Reeve et al., 2006, p.389).
On the other hand, one could argue that our sample was
highly selected in terms of both cognitive ability and
personality. Even though admission tests (e.g., SAT, GRE,
and GMAT) are rarely used in the UK – and were not
employed for selection in any of the present samples – the
fact that students were enrolled in competitive university
programmes, where admission is based on previous aca-
demic achievement records (i.e., A-levels or pre-entry
examinations) would suggest that a highly competent and
unrepresentative sample was examined. In this regard,
research has shown that highly able students show lower
gc–gf correlations (Abad, Colom, Juan-Espinoza &
Garcia, 2003; Detterman & Daniel, 1989), and indeed
one may expect that personality differences play a bigger
role in determining academic achievement once ability
levels are high and relatively homogeneous. However, the
 T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Arteche / Intelligence 36 (2008) 564–573
means, and especially the SD, for Conscientiousness,
Openness, gf and gc were in line with the manual's norms,
indicating that the sample was representative for the target
age group assessed.
Perhaps the most important limitation, however, is the
fact that the present study did not include multiple-wave
assessment of any of the relevant constructs. Thus causality
and reciprocal effects among the relevant ability and non-
ability predictors of AP remain a matter of interpretation
and speculation. Moreover, future research is needed to
provide multiple-wave assessment of the full model, and,
ideally, throughout a longer timeframe (10–15 years).
Despite these limitations, the present results provide
preliminary support for the IC model postulated by
Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2005, 2006a). In parti-
cular, they highlight some interesting mediational effects
among ability and non-ability predictors of AP by gc, SAI,
and C, such that higher gf leads to higher AP partly because
it facilitates higher levels of crystallized intelligence as well
as confidence in one's abilities, but also slightly handicaps
AP through its negative effects on Conscientiousness.
These results provide evidence for the complex interplay
between different determinants of educational achieve-
ment. Although evidence is still preliminary, it is quite clear
that using only cognitive ability measures or personality
traits (including self-reports of ability) will provide a
limited picture of an individual's likelihood to succeed in
academic settings, as well as a limited understanding of the
development of adult intellectual competence in terms of
broad individual difference constructs.
References
Abad, F. J., Colom, R., Juan-Espinosa, M., & y García, L. F. (2003).
Intelligence differentiation in adult samples. Intelligence, 31,
157−166.
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development:
process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22,
229−259.
Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2003). Intelligence, personality, and
interests in the career choice process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11,
205−218.
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and
interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121,
219−245.
Ackerman, P. L., & Goff, M. (1994). Typical intellectual engagement
and personality: Reply to Rocklin (1994). Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 150−153.
Ackerman, P. L., & Wolman, S. D. (2007). Determinants and validity
of self-estimates of abilities and self-concept measures. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 57−78.
Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the
maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on information
theory (pp. 267−281). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
571
Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4 user's reference guide.
Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Vernon, P. A., & Jang, K. L. (2000). Fluid
intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and the Openness/Intellect
factor. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 198−207.
Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C., Fowkes, F. G., Pedersen,
N. L., Rabitt, P., et al. (2002). Relationships between ability and
personality: Does intelligence contribute positively to personal and
social adjustment? Personality and Individual Differences, 32,
1391−1411.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1173−1182.
Bates, T. C., & Rock, A. (2004a). Personality and information
processing speed: Independent influences on intelligent perfor-
mance. Intelligence, 32, 33−46.
Bates, T. C., & Rock, A. (2004b). Extraversion and processing speed:
Separable influence on intelligent behaviour. Intelligence, 32,
33−46.
Bates, T. C., & Shieles, A. (2003). Crystallized intelligence as a
product of speed and drive for experience: The relationship of
inspection time and Openness to g and gc. Intelligence, 31,
275−287.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238−246.
Binet, A. (1905). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level
of subnormals.L'Annee Psychologique, 12, 191−244 (Translated in
1916 by E.S. Kite in the Development of intelligence in children.
Vineland, NJ: Publications of the training school at Vineland).
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York: Wiley.
Brody, N. (1997). Intelligence, schooling, and society. American Psy-
chologist, 52, 1046−1050.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural
equation models (pp. 136−162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence
test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven
Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404−431.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-
analytical studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and
measurement. New York, NY: World.
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action.
New York, NY: Houghton Miflin.
Cattell, R. B. (1998). Where is intelligence? Some answers from the
triadic theory. In J. J. McArdle & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human
cognitive abilities in theory and practice (pp. 29−38). Mahwah,
NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and individual differences.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality predicts
academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal studies on
British University students. Journal of Research in Personality, 37,
319−338.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality traits and
academic exam performance. European Journal of Personality, 17,
237−250.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model to
understand the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of
Psychology, 95, 249−264.
572 T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Arteche / Intelligence 36 (2008) 564–573
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intel-
lectual competence. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006a). Intellectual compe-
tence and the intelligent personality: A third way in differential
psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10, 251−267.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006b). Self-assessed intelligence
and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 26, 769−779.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Moutafi, J. (2004). The
relationship between psychometric and estimated personality and
intelligence scores. Journal of Research in Personality, 38,
505−513.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (submitted for
publication). More than just IQ: Longitudinal validity of self-
perceived ability in the prediction of academic performance.
Intelligence.
Collis, J. M., & Messick, S. (2001). Intelligence and personality:
Bridging the gap in theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-
FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandez, C. (2007). Intelligence
and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35, 13−21.
Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C., Starr, J. M., Whalley, L. J., & Fox, H. C.
(2004). The impact of childhood intelligence on later life:
Following up the Scottish Mental Surveys of 1932 and 1947.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 130−147.
Demetriou, A., Kyriakides, L., & Avraamidou, C. (2003). The missing
link in relations between intelligence and personality. Journal of
Research in Personality, 37, 547−581.
Denissen, J. J., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). “I like to do it, I'm
able, and I know I am”: Longitudinal couplings between domain-
specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Develop-
ment, 78, 430−447.
Detterman, D. K., & Daniel, M. H. (1989). Correlations of mental tests
with each other and with cognitive variables are highest for low-IQ
groups. Intelligence, 13, 349−359.
Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five
robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 116−123.
Dobson, P. (2000). Neuroticism, extraversion and cognitive test perfor-
mance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 99−109.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield,
IL: C.C.Thomas.
Eysenck, H. J. (1971). Relation between intelligence and personality.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 637−638.
Eysenck, H. J., & White, P. O. (1964). Personality and the measurement of
intelligence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 197−202.
Feingold, A. (1994). Sex differences in personality: A meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429−456.
Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (1997). Gender differences in
educational achievement in a New Zealand birth cohort. New Zealand
Journal of Educational Studies, 32, 83−96.
Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005).
Personality and intelligence: Gender, the Big Five, self-estimated
and psychometric intelligence. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 13, 11−24.
Gignac, G. E. (2005). Openness to experience, general intelligence,
and crystallized intelligence: A methodological extension. Intelli-
gence, 33, 161−167.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three facets of intellect. American Psychologist, 14,
469−479.
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations:
Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 84, 537−553.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality
inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor
models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.),
Personality psychology in Europe, Vol. 7. (pp. 7−28). Tilburg, The
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Schools and the g factor. The Wilson Quarterly,
Summer, 35−45.
Harris, J. A. (2004). Measured intelligence, achievement, openness to
experience, and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
913−929.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-
of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325−344.
Holland, D. C., Dollinger, S. J., Holland, C. J., & MacDonald, D. A.
(1995). The relationship between psychometric intelligence and
the five factor model of personality in a rehabilitation sample.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 79−88.
Horn, J. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf–Gc
theory. In D. P. Flaganan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison's (Eds.),
Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues
(pp. 53−90). New York: Guilford Press.
Hu, L. -T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and
applications (pp. 76−99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hyde, J. S., & Kling, K. C. (2001). Women, motivation, and achievement.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 364−378.
Jencks, C. (1979). Who gets ahead? The determinants of economic
success in America. New York; NY: Basic Books.
Jensen, A. J. (1962). Extraversion, neuroticism and serial learning.
Acta Psychologica, 20, 69−77.
Jensen, A. J. (1973). Personality in scholastic achievement in three ethnic
groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 115−125.
Jensen, A. J. (1980). Bias in mental testing. London: Methuen.
Jensen, A. J. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Koenig, K. A., Frey, M. C., & Determan, D. K. (in press). ACT and
general cognitive ability. Intelligence.
Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive
matrices: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481−498.
Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (in press). Sex differences in mental arithmetic,
digit span, and g defined as working memory capacity. Intelligence.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Self-concept theory, measurement and research
into practice: The role of self-concept in educational psychology.
Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality
traits, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries
of Factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8, 251−272.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of
Openness to Experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825−847). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Moutafi, J., Funrham, A., & Crump, J. (2006). What facets of openness
and conscientiousness predict fluid intelligence score? Learning
and Individual Differences, 16, 31−41.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2006). Can personality factors
predict intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 38,
1021−1033.
 T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Arteche / Intelligence 36 (2008) 564–573
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Tsaousis, I. (2006). Is the relationship
between intelligence and trait neuroticism mediated by test anxiety?
Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 587−597.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., &
Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for
structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430−445.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). A guide to the development
and use of the Myers–Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, California:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Neubauer, A. (1997). The mental speed approach to the assessment of
intelligence. In J. Kingma & W. Tomic (Eds.), Advances in
cognition and educational practice: Reflections on the concept of
intelligence, Vol. 4. (pp. 149−174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic
outcomes: Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 116−130.
Nyborg, H. (2005). Sex-related differences in general intelligence g,
brain size, and social status. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 39, 497−509.
O'Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality
predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43, 971−990.
Petrill, S. A., & Wilkerson, B. (2000). Intelligence and achievement: A
behavioral genetic perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12,
185−199.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven's prog-
ressive matrices and vocabulary scales: Section 4, Advanced prog-
ressive matrices Sets I and II. San Antonio, TX: Hardcourt Assessment.
Reeve, C. L., & Hakel, M. D. (2000). Toward an understanding of
adult intellectual development: Investigating within person con-
vergence of interest and knowledge profiles. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 897−908.
Reeve, C. L., Meyer, D., & Bonaccio, S. (2006). Intelligence-personality
associations reconsidered: The importance of distinguishing between
general and narrow dimensions of intelligence. Intelligence, 34,
387−402.
Rinderman, H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2004). Processing speed, intelligence,
creativity, and school performance: Testing of causal hypotheses
using structural equation models. Intelligence, 32, 573−589.
Rhode, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic
achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35, 83−92.
Rindermann, H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2004). Processing speed,
intelligence, creativity, and school performance: Testing of causal
hypotheses using structural equation models. Intelligence, 32,
573−589.
573
Rocklin, T. (1994). Relation between typical intellectual engagement
and openness: Comment on Goff & Ackerman. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 145−149.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection
methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implica-
tions of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
262−274.
Skaklofske, D. H. (1985). The relationship between Eysenck's major
personality dimension and simultaneous and sequential processing
in children. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 429−433.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural
equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology
1982 (pp. 290−312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and
measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201−293.
Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2006). Predicting
school achievement from general cognitive ability, self-perceived
ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence, 34, 363−374.
Strand, S., Deary, I., & smith, P. (2006). Sex differences in cognitive
ability test scores: A UK national picture. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 463−480.
Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure
models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of
Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 38, 197−201.
Thorndike, R. L. (1985). The central role of general ability in prediction.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 241−254.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961/1992). Recurrent personality
factors based on trait ratings (ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland air force
base, TX. Aeronautical systems division personnel laboratory.
Reprints in 1992. Journal of Personality, 60, 225−251.
Undheim, J. O., & Gustafsoon, J. E. (1987). The hierarchical organization
of cognitive abilities: Restoring general intelligence through the use of
Linear Structural Relations (LISREL). Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 22, 149−171.
Webb, E. (1915). Character and intelligence. British Journal of
Psychology, 1, 99.
Wolf, M. B., & Ackerman, P. L. (2005). Extraversion and intelligence:
A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 39, 531−542.
Zeidner, M. (1995). Personality trait correlates of intelligence. In D. H.
Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality
and intelligence (pp. 299−319). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (2nd Ed). NY: Cambridge
University Press.