Human Development

Knowledge Area Module 2:
Principles of Human Development
Student: Robert E. Keyes, Jr. Robert.KeyesJr@waldenu.edu
Student ID # A00149323
Program: PhD in Applied Management and Decision Sciences
Specialization: General
KAM Assessor: Aqueil Ahmad, PhD Aqueil.Ahmad@waldenu.edu
Faculty Mentor: Aqueil Ahmad, PhD Aqueil.Ahmad@waldenu.edu
Walden University
August 4, 2009
ABSTRACT
BREADTH
The Breadth component relates the theoretical concepts of intelligence, personality and
motivation to the unique individual, and discusses how cooperation among people
juxtaposed in a culture and society translates these theories into observable human
interaction. Intelligence and personality explain much of the distinctive nature of human
beings. Intelligence is an emergent property of the brain that permits awareness of the
environment, and culture. Piaget theorized that intelligence develops in stages from
infancy to adolescence. Vygotsky showed that learning depends on culture and other
people. Gardner hypothesized multiple intelligences. Personality is collection of
individual cognitive response to the environment. Jung divided the human psyche into
extraverts and introverts, laying the foundation for personality typing. Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs motivates behavior.

ABSTRACT
DEPTH
The Depth component compares and contrasts current search on the theories of
intelligence, personality, cognition, and motivation with emphasis on examining the
construct validity of various psychometric measurement instruments. The MSCEIT is a
four-branch model of emotional intelligence. The PEN and NEO-PI model personality on
three or five factor respectively. The CoSI measures three different cognitive styles.
Correlation studies demonstrate overlap across these instruments that can be exploited to
characterize an Intelligence-Personality Complex. Logically, the complex can describe
not only people individually, but also events or tasks. Equating people to tasks based on
intelligence and personality measures becomes possible by evaluating the psychometric
measurements as an integrated whole.

ABSTRACT
APPLICATION
The Application component presents a method for matching individuals to tasks that can
be accomplished by exploiting the overlap of the psychometric instruments of
intelligence, personality and cognitive style. Theory of intelligence and personality are
directly operationalized by the matrix of correlated facets that guides the selection of
either tasks or individuals based on specific Intelligence-Personality Complex
assessments. More expansive use of the matrix considers the Intelligence-Personality
Complex in organizational development, product design, and marketing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
BREADTH..........................................................................................................................1
A Construct of Intelligence..............................................................................................2
A definition of intelligence..........................................................................................2
The biological basis of intelligence.............................................................................3
The psychology of intelligence....................................................................................4
Multiple intelligences..................................................................................................8
Building the construct of intelligence........................................................................11
A question of personality...........................................................................................13
A Construct of Personality.............................................................................................14
A definition of personality.........................................................................................14
Conscious and unconscious behavior........................................................................14
Psychological types...................................................................................................16
The hierarchy needs...................................................................................................19
Building a construct of personality............................................................................23
A question of interaction............................................................................................24
A Paradigm of Observable Human Interaction..............................................................25
Translating from mental to physical..........................................................................25
The cultural substrate.................................................................................................26
Summary of Breadth Component..................................................................................28
DEPTH..............................................................................................................................32
Annotated Bibliography.................................................................................................32
Summary of annotated bibliography..........................................................................56
Literature Review Essay................................................................................................57
Emotional intelligence...............................................................................................59
Personality..................................................................................................................64
Cognitive style...........................................................................................................70
The Intelligence-Personality Complex......................................................................73
Interpreting the individual.........................................................................................79
Equation of cooperation.............................................................................................82
Summary of Depth Component.....................................................................................83
APPLICATION..................................................................................................................83
The Matrix of Correlations............................................................................................83
Applying the matrix of correlated factors..................................................................84
An example of best-fit matching...............................................................................85
Theory and Current Research Support..........................................................................87
Critique of the matrix.................................................................................................88
Practical possibilities.................................................................................................90
Summary of Application Component............................................................................92
Overall Summary of KAM 2.........................................................................................92
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................95
ii
KNOWLEDGE AREA MODULE
BREADTH
SBSF 8210: THEORIES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Human development can be examined in terms of physical and psychological
factors. Factors from these areas of study constitute the basis for theories of intelligence
and personality types. These theories guide an understanding of interpersonal dynamics.
Understanding how humans behave individually and collectively is fundamental to any
explanation of human cooperation.
The construct of intelligence both physically and psychologically will be
examined from the works of John Ratey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and Howard
Gardner. Ratey is a Harvard physician who has studied the relationship of the parts of the
brain and its psychological functions. The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget theorized that
intelligence emerges in discrete stages from infancy to adulthood. The Russian
psychologist Lev Vygotsky added the factor of social and cultural influence to the field.
Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard, postulated descriptors of multiple intelligences.
A synthesis of these theories begins to reflect the complexity of human intelligence and
cognition from birth to adulthood as a prerequisite to understanding human interaction.
Personality typing is an attempt to further characterize the differences between
individuals. Personality types reflect the values, attitudes, and morality preferences of
individual humans. The Swedish psychologist Carl Jung postulated a foundation of
individual differences in terms of introvert and extravert personality types. These two
types are further described by functional attitudes of thinking, feeling, sensing, and
intuition. The American psychologist Abraham H. Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs
that motivate individual behavior beginning with a need for safety, and progressing to a
KNOWLEDGE AREA MODULE 2
level of attaining self-actualization. These two theories alloy to form the basis of several
personality typing paradigms, such as the Myers-Briggs Type indicator and the Five
Factor Model.
A foundation of the physical development of intelligence will be described in
conjunction with the concomitant psychological implications by synthesis of the ideas of
Ratey and Piaget. Gardner’s idea of multiple intelligences will be overlaid onto this
foundation to complete a proposed construct of intelligence. Next, the motivations of
behavior in terms of needs as posed by Maslow will be compared and contrasted with the
personality types and psychic drivers that Jung’s work unveiled. Between the construct
of intelligence and the construct of personality types a paradigm can be found that is
useful in understanding human interaction.
A Construct of Intelligence
A definition of intelligence.
Intelligence is simultaneously a biological and logical potential to process
information (Gardner, 1999; Piaget, 1950). The biological basis of the intelligence resides
in the physical substance of brain tissue. The logical basis of intelligence is an emergent
property of the biological brain arising from the processing of information. Intelligence is
only a potential of the brain, since processing depends first on perception of information
via the brains physical parts. In his 1983 book Intelligence Reframed, Howard Gardner
included in a definition of intelligence the activation of intelligence by cultural influences
and by the utility of problem solving. Piaget (1950) considered intelligence to be a
generic term for the act of achieving an “equilibrium of cognitive structuring” which will
be fully explained in the next section.

Intelligence can be described by multiple attributes, such as linguistic, spatial,
bodily-kinesthetic, logico-mathematical, musical, personal intelligences as postulated by
Howard Gardner in his book Frames of Mind. Intelligence is an emergent property of the
brain that combines these physical sensations into meaningful forms that separates the
individual from the external environment. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems,
speak, think, display emotions, and be self-aware.
The biological basis of intelligence.
The basic biological unit of the brain is the neuron. Neurons are cells that “wire
together” from their tree-like projections called axons and dendrites at junctions called
synapses. The brain is the most complex object in the universe with hundreds of billions
of neurons capable of more than 40 quadrillion possible connections (Ratey, 2001). These
networks are regionalized in various macro-structures of the brain, such as the right and
left hemispheres of the cerebrum, the amygdala, and the cerebellum, et al. (Ratey, 2001).
Networks of neurons begin forming during fetal development. The various networks
enable perception of sensory information of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. These
are purely physical sensations common to most living organisms, but they do not
constitute intelligence per se.
The connection of intelligence to the physical structures of the brain has been
determined by studying brain damaged individuals. Stroke victims with damage to
selected areas of the brain lose specific abilities of sensation and perception and thus lose
the emergence of certain facets of intelligence (Ratey, 2001). For instance, stroke damage
to Broca’s area of the left hemisphere of the brain causes a person to lose the ability to
speak. The ability to distinguish certain emotions is lost when the amygdala is damaged
(Ratey, 2001).
Having established that intelligence resides in the biological brain, the next
question to arise is how intelligence emerges from the brain and how this emergence is
evidenced. Jean Piaget, the renowned Swiss psychologist, theorized that intelligence
develops in definable stages beginning at birth and progressing through about the twelfth
year.
The psychology of intelligence.
Piaget (1950) outlined a series of stages of the development of intelligence and
characterized a mechanism for how the stages evolve in succession. The Piagetian
mechanism begins with the idea that equilibrium between the individual and the outside
world is necessary. The outside world can be any particular object perceived by the
individual. The first part of establishing equilibrium is assimilation of the object in
which the individual imposes a mental structure on the object. The creation of this
structure is an active effort of the individual in relation to the object based on prior
experiences. The reverse of assimilation is accommodation where the object imputes a
structure to the individual. Adaptation is the combination of assimilation and
accommodation that yields an equilibrium which balances the individual with the objects
in the environment. Constant adaptation by the individual of objects builds up schema.
Schemas are psychological groupings of equilibriums that are internalized by the
individual. A key point to understanding Piaget’s concept of how intelligence develops is
that the individual continually fills out these schemas based on accumulated experience
(Piaget, 1950).
From birth to about 2 years of age, Piaget observed that infants exhibit merely
random reflexes of grasping, sucking and crying that proceeds to more ordered behavior
of discriminating discrete objects. The infant has begun developing schemas of objects.
As the schemas become more complex, the infant gains the important concept of object
permanence. The object can now persist in the memory of the child. The human now
comprehends objects as separate entities that persist apart from itself (Piaget, 1950).
Additionally, the infant can recognize and discriminate facial expressions at this stage,
and this ability seems to be without regard to cultural influences (Gardner, 1983). Piaget
(1950) labeled this initial stage the Sensori-Motor Stage.
Around the age of 2 years and until about 7 years, the child enters the Piagetian
Pre-Operational Stage. During this stage, the most evident evolution of intelligence is the
application of symbols to create language. The child begins to talk. Language then
becomes the primary mechanism for the growth of intelligence. Egocentric speech of the
child’s “me and “my” eventually turns outward to socialized speech that recognizes other
people with “you” and “your”. Socialized speech provides the child with the ability to
attain adult assistance in problem solving. Learning by socialization with adult assistance
is strongly influenced by culture (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, culture begins to bear on the
development of intelligence. At this stage of development, the child does not have the
faculty of conservation of quantities and suffers from the belief in artificialism, believing
that natural phenomena are man-made (Piaget, 1950). Obviously, intelligence is not yet
completely developed yet.
The Concrete Operations stage begins near 7years and extends to around 11 years
of age. By this age, the child can conserve quantities, no longer misled by the changes is
length and breadth or changes in perspective. The child no longer believes that inanimate
objects are alive, and the idea of time continuity is understood. The child has a clear
distinction between self and others and can relate more flexibility toward others (Gardner,
1983). Assimilation and accommodation have created schemas that can correctly classify
objects. A key attainment during this stage is the transition from using pure intuition to
using more formal methods of logic (Piaget, 1950).
By the age of about 12 and continuing through adulthood, the individual attains
the use of reflective thought and hypothetico-deductive mechanisms of reasoning in
Piaget’s final stage called Formal Operations (Piaget, 1950). The individual can now rely
on assumptions not based in reality and can use abstract and deductive reasoning. The
period of adolescence is an important time for honing the new-found level of intelligence.
A keener sense of self emerges with greater sensitivities to the motivations of others. The
social world has greater significance and it becomes more differentiated (Gardner, 1983).
Piaget’s stages of development suffer some criticism in that the stages are not as
discontinuous and demarcated as they seem. Further, the stages may appear out of order
as presented by Piaget, and the stages do not account for extraordinary individuals such
as prodigies and savants (Gardner, 1983). Piaget relied heavily on linguistic and logical
capabilities to expound his theory, but other theories depend on signs, symbols, and
societal influences (Vygotsky, 1978).
Lev Vygotsky, a contemporary of Piaget, suggested that the development of
intelligence depends to a great part on the influence of society represented by its unique
tools and symbols. Vygotsky introduced the Social Development Theory of intelligence.
The main points of this theory are that social interaction precedes cognitive development
which is in direct contrast to Piaget’s idea that cognitive development occurs first. The
Vygotsky theory also states that the existing signs, symbols, and tools in a society shape
the development of intelligence.
Vygotsky described technical thinking as the genesis of intelligence. Technical
thinking begins with the acquisition of language and corresponds to Piaget’s Pre-
Operational Stage. At around the age of two years, the child recognizes that verbal signs
have meaning. Vygotsky averred that speech along with tool use as a parallel process akin
to Piaget’s egocentric speech organizes a child’s behavior. The tool that Vygotsky implies
is the human hand as well as invented implements that are used to transform the
environment. As the child becomes more experienced, a greater of number of models are
understood. The Vygotsky models are analogs of the Piagetian schemas. Vygotsky noted
that the child begins to organize behavior that modifies the environment by the alloy of
language and the use of tools. These acts of intelligence eventually become the basis for
useful work (Vygotsky, 1978).
Vygotsky postulated the concept of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to
describe how learning occurs. Vygotsky believed that learning and development are
interrelated from the first day of life. At any point in the continuum from birth to
maturity, an actual developmental level is achieved that can be measured by reference to
problem solving ability. The actual developmental level is an end-stage of intelligence up
to the point of maturity. The ZPD is the difference between this actual development level
and the level that the child can achieve with adult guidance. Learning occurs in this zone,
or gap of ability. Ostensibly, since an adult is necessarily present as a factor the learning
process, all of the cultural and societal influences of the adult are passed to the child.
Thus, society and culture bear on the development of intelligence according to
Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory (Vygotsky, 1978).
An implication of Vygotsky’s theory is that the rate of learning can be influenced
by instruction within the ZPD. That Piaget’s stages are fixed in terms of various age
ranges marks a clear divergence between Vygotsky and Piaget. Piaget brings intelligence
to full form by adolescence, whereas Vygotsky’s theory implies that the ZPD persists
throughout life, and that intelligence continues to develop without an end-point.
Piaget and Vygotsky modeled the development of intelligence by stages and by
social influence. Lightly mentioned previously is that extraordinary types of intelligence
exhibited by prodigies and savants are not explainable by the theories of either Piaget or
Vygotsky. However, autism, idiots, morons, and other examples of diminished
intelligence can be explained by biological malfunctions and physical damage to the
brain (Ratey, 2001). Howard Gardner expounded the Theory of Multiple Intelligences
(MI) to help explain the phenomena of how intelligence manifests itself in a variety of
ways.
Multiple intelligences.
The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) was introduced by Howard Gardner in
1983 in his landmark book Frames of Mind. Gardner opens his argument for the
existence of multiple intelligences by noting that IQ test do not actually explain how the
mind works. IQ tests are “microscopic…and seemingly represent a ‘shotgun’ approach to
the assessment of human intellect” (Gardner, 1983, p. 18). IQ tests rely heavily on
language and logical operations to solve problems that are not grounded in reality.
Piaget’s theory also rests strongly on the basis of language and logic. Although Gardner
agreed that the Piagetian information processing approach to intelligence is profoundly
useful, he criticized it on the grounds that Piaget’s concept is “monolithic” and represents
but one way to understand intelligence. To the Piagetian framework that focuses on
language and logic, Gardner enjoins the symbols systems approach of Vygotsky to
broaden the understanding intelligence by including musical, bodily, spatial,
mathematical, and pictures forms.
Biologically, the brain is the physical product of the genotypic expression of
DNA. The phenotype is the observable characteristic of the individual expressed within a
given environment that is of interest in studying intelligence (Gardner, 1983). Relating
intelligence to the various brain structures has already been established (Ratey, 2001).
Gardner noted that even though a relationship exists between the physical brain and
behavior, nothing can be said about the relationship of the genotype to the phenotype.
Studies of identical twins show that heritability accounts for at most only 50% of the
variance in intelligence, with the balance accounted for in the variable phenotypes
(Gardner, 1983). Gardner defines canalization as the tendency for development to
proceed along a particular pathway. But yet the brain also exhibits the feature of
plasticity where development varies based on the effects of a range of environmental
factors. Intelligence develops via mechanisms of both canalization and plasticity. The
result is that each individual develops a predisposition in cognition to the range of
environmental stimuli. Gardner states that because of the effects of plasticity that the
brain is not an “equipotential organ”, but rather certain cognitive abilities become
“encapsulated”. The encapsulated abilities create distinct computational mechanisms

operative on various classes of stimuli. Consequently, intelligence develops with
strengths and competencies along multiple stimulated pathways.
Gardner established criteria for defining a particular line of intelligence potential.
Recognizing the connection between the physical brain and behavior, an intelligence
should be evident by observing the effects of brain damage. The intelligence should have
a distinct development pattern and evolutionary history. It should be susceptible to
symbolic encoding and supported by some sort of psychometric determinant. Savants and
prodigies should be observed with extraordinary abilities in the particular intelligence
(Gardner, 1983).
Given Gardner’s explanation of encapsulated strengths and competencies and his
criteria for defining an intelligence, seven separate intelligences can be described:
linguistic, musical, logico-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and two personal
intelligences. Gardner considers these seven intelligences to contain the greater part of
human intelligence, but he admits that many other classifications, or other candidates for
multiple intelligences could be described. Gardner suggests two more possible
intelligences: naturalist as persons adroit in classifying flora and fauna, and existential as
persons adroit in philosophical thinking (Gardner, 1999). A notable additional
intelligence described subsequent to Gardner’s Frames of Mind is emotional intelligence
(EI). Gardner preferred the term emotional sensitivity, because he believed that emotional
control is an aspect of the two personal intelligences in the MI theory.
Gardner himself addressed criticism of his concept of multiple intelligences in his
later book Intelligence Reframed (1999). First, Gardner states that multiple intelligences
did not arise from factor analysis, but rather by observation. He states that intelligence is
a biological potential, emphasizing the constant dynamic interaction between the genetic
factors and the environment. The impact of the environment that Gardner notes is similar
to the cultural and societal influences that both Vygotsky and Piaget observed. Second,
Gardner stressed that even though a person may have a gift for a particular type of
intelligence, that person must be exposed to the domain of stimuli necessary for it to
flourish. Multiple intelligences do not imply a style of thinking, but only a propensity for
strength in one area or another. Nor does multiple intelligence suggest anything good or
bad, i.e., moral. Rather, “people with strengths in particular intelligences must still decide
how exploit those strengths” (Gardner, 1999, p. 89). Third, Gardner did not include
features of personality in multiple intelligences. The aspects of personality will be
discussed in the next section where support for multiple intelligence within the theories
of Abraham Maslow and Carl Jung may be construed. Finally, creativity, understanding,
and wisdom are not part of the theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1999).
Building the construct of intelligence.
Intelligence is a theoretical construct derived for the purpose of explaining the
particularly human ability of thinking. Thinking is ostensibly a property of the physical
brain which is a mass of neurons wired together in possibly infinite combinations. The
connections of the neurons are affected by bio-chemical means, but can be affected by
experience and perception. Certain deficiencies in behavior can be observed when the
normal healthy brain is damaged. Extraordinary capabilities can be observed in healthy
brains, indicating an immense range of response from different people all who possess
quite similar substance of brain tissue. DNA directs the physical development of the brain
—the genotype, but the observable phenotypes of each individual person is exceptionally
unique. Ratey, Gardner, Piaget, and Vygotsky all recognize that the brain is the biological
instrument of intelligence. Intelligence is the emergent property of the brain (Ratey,
2001).
Despite the vast complexity of the brain resulting in myriad observable behavior,
humans generally share the same linear progression of the development of intelligence.
Ratey comments that infants can recognize faces and respond with emotion, but he
offered no real explanation as to why. Piaget, according to Gardner, is “the” psychologist
for understanding intelligence. Piaget’s stages of intelligence development show very
clearly how the tabula rasa of the infant brain begins to organize sensations from the
external environment, first in simple schemes, and then in progressively more complex
schemes. Vygotsky called these schemes models, but Piaget and Vygotsky differed
sharply on how these schema grow into intelligence. Piaget believed that as the infant
grows, the schema develop from trial and error corrections based on linguistic ques.
Vygotsky believed that learning, his synonym for intelligence development, occurred in a
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) that depended upon a culturally influenced adult.
While Piaget also acknowledged a cultural component, his idea is more depended on the
internal capability of the child rather than the external culture as Vygotsky would have it.
In either case, humans gain a sense of self independent of the environment in which it can
interact. Intelligence develops based on a progressive elaboration of comprehending the
external world (Piaget, 1950; Vygotsky, 1978).
That culture is proffered as a determinant in intelligence, Howard Gardner’s idea
of multiple intelligences is not so bizarre. Gardner pointed out that children in China
learn Chinese and not English. Children in Russia are exposed to chess at an early age,
and not surprisingly many chess masters are Russian. Likewise each culture values a
different type of sensory input. Logico-mathematical intelligence is prized in Western
cultures, but not necessarily in others. For instance, some African cultures stress spatial
and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. The phenomenon of prodigies and savants also
indicates that the human brain exhibits profound variability and plasticity. Multiple
intelligences fill a gaping theoretical hole left by Piaget and Vygotsky whose theories do
not even try to explain the diversity that Gardner’s MI theory clearly identifies.
Intelligence is a product of cultural influence on the plasticity of the brain (Gardner,
1983, 1999).
A concise construct of intelligence can be distilled from these theories:
Intelligence emerges from the brain throughout the course of a human life. Intelligence
permits the human to sense the world in terms of its physical, cultural, and societal
demands. Intelligence allows for productive human thought and for human interaction.
A question of personality.
The foregoing construct of intelligence concisely sums its biological and
psychological development. Universal features of intelligence in terms of the physical
brain and a general linear development is clear from the works of Ratey, Piaget, and
Vygotsky. Universals of intelligence provide a basis for characterizing the species homo
sapiens, but they do not explain the peculiar differences between specific individuals.
Morality, understanding, creativity, artistry, and temperament are not even part of
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. However, Gardner’s idea begins to splinter
human intelligence into parts that can perhaps begin to explain the phenomenon of
personality. The next section will fill out the concept of personality by examining the
works of Abraham H. Maslow and Carl G. Jung.
A Construct of Personality
A definition of personality.
No better definition of personality can be offered other than that of Abraham H.
Maslow in his foundational book Motivation and Personality (1954, p. 32):
…a personality syndrome is a structured, organized complex of apparently

diverse specificities (behaviors, thoughts, impulses to action, perceptions, etc.)
which, however, when studied carefully and validly are found to have a common
unity that may be phrased variously as a similar dynamic meaning, expression,
“flavor”, function, or purpose.
“Flavor” is the key element of Maslow’s definition that distinguishes personality
from intelligence. Unlike the construct of intelligence, personality incorporates subjective
ideas of morality and values as well as phenomena such as habits and intuition. Carl G.
Jung classified personality on observable types. Jung said that personality is “the total
man, i.e., man as he really is, as he appears to himself.” (Jung, 1959)
Conscious and unconscious behavior.
Jung’s “total man” concept includes not only a conscious part, but also includes
an unconscious as part of the human psyche. The interplay of the conscious and
unconscious aspects of the psyche gives rise to various observable personality types
(Jung, 1950). To grasp Jung’s divisions of the psyche, the notion of archetypes must be
established.
Archetypes emerge from yet a broader concept proposed by Jung: the collective
unconscious. The collective unconscious is universal to all humans. It does not arise
from any personal experience or knowledge, but rather it is hereditary. The collective
unconscious contains modes of behavior that are common to all humans. Indeed, Jung
avers that the collective unconscious is identical in all humans. The contents of the
collective unconscious are archaic, primordial, universal images “existing from the
remotest times” (Jung, 1959). These images represent patterns of instinctual behavior
that do not originate in the rationally motivated mind. Although Jung deemed the
collective unconscious to be universal, he was careful to distinguish also a personal
unconscious. The personal conscious is a feeling-toned complex constituting the private
psychic life of the individual.
Archetypes are the contents of the collective unconscious that amount to the
immediate datum of the psyche that has not undergone any elaboration by the conscious
mind. Jung outlines several archetypes, such as the mother, anima, animus, hero, shadow,
trickster, wise old man, and child. These colorful archetype names intimate the concept
of the archetypes as “primordial universal images” that have a pre-existing form of
meaning to all humans. To enliven the concept of archetypes, Jung refers to myths,
fairytales, and figures from literature to further explicate the universality of the
archetypes of the collective unconscious (Jung, 1959).
Archetypes as unconscious content of the collective unconscious are altered in the
process of becoming conscious. A particular archetype is brought to the foreground of
consciousness by a correspondent stimulus. The character of the archetype is colored by
the individual in whom it appears. Drawing from the construct of intelligence where
individual perception is trained by societal influences, it seems possible that the different
archetypes could be more or less prevalent in dissimilar cultures. In any case, archetypal
influence, albeit universal in Jung’s thinking, accounts for consistency between and
among all people of all cultures, but yet permits a degree of individuality. Thus, the
structure and expression of the archetypes is parallel to canalization and plasticity of the
brain in the construct of intelligence.
A few archetypes of interest in personality expression are the shadow, the anima,
and the animus. The shadow archetype represents all of an individual’s inferior traits and
incompatible tendencies that one refuses to acknowledge. The shadow is the
confrontation with one’s own unconscious. The shadow is the source of much personal
disillusionment (Jung, 1959). Other archetypes such as the anima and animus are
complementary. The anima is a masculine archetype that represents the male aspect of
women. The animus is the counterpoint feminine archetype of men. The pairing of the
anima and animus is a syzygy, much described in Eastern cultures as the yin-yang. The
various archetypes can be projected onto other people. Projection is the unconscious and
automatic process of transference of the content of the unconscious from the individual
onto others. Since the shadow is an unconscious alteration of the normally observed
personality type, projection accounts for the exhibition of incongruous behavior, i.e.,
occasional acting out of character.
Psychological types.
The Jungian archetypes expressed by projection of the unconscious couple with
conscious behavior. This coupling invokes individualized modes of behavior. Jung
defined two opposite modes of behavior termed attitude-types that depend on the flow of
psychic energy. (Jung’s psychic energy is the same as the Freudian libido which describes
psychological value. Psychological value relates to intensity of effect, and not to
intellectual, aesthetics, or morals). An extravert attitude-type orients behavior by an

outward flow of psychic energy attention to objects in the environment. Extraverts place
a higher psychic value on objective external objects. The object takes on a greater value
than the individual. An object orientation predominates. The introvert attitude-type is the
opposite type, directing psychic energy attention inward. The individual takes on a
greater value than the object. A subjective orientation predominates. Both introversion
and extraversion attitude-types exist in every individual, and the chronic preference for
one or the other determines an individual’s type (Jung, 1950).
Introversion or extraversion attitude-types are randomly distributed and do not
appear to have a hereditary basis. Nor does a type appear to be choice of an individual,
but rather it is a form of adaptation (Jung, 1950). The idea of adaptation harkens back to
the theory of Piaget who believed that an individual adapts to the environment by means
of assimilation and accommodation of novel stimuli (Piaget, 1950). Thus, while
apparently random in occurrence, introversion or extraversion seem to play a part in the
development of intelligence if merely as a direction of libido.
Jung believed that the psyche is an apparatus for adaptation driven by four
primary functions. The function-types include thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition.
Thinking types utilizes reflective intellectually considered motives. Feeling types
discriminate objects by empathy. Sensation types employ perception by physical
stimulus. Intuition types mediate perception in an unconscious way. Each of the function-
types can be expressed by either of the two attitude-types. Eight combinations of attitude-
functions are therefore possible under the Jungian classification of psychological types:
introvert-thinking, introvert-feeling, introvert-sensation, introvert-intuition, extravert-
thinking, extravert-feeling, extravert-sensation, and extravert-intuition.

Thinking and feeling function-types are grouped as the rational types, and
sensation and intuition are grouped as the non-rational types. (Jung used the term
irrational, but non-rational better describes his meaning). The rational types are more
prevalent in men, and the non-rational types predominate in women (Jung, 1950).
Rational types use thoughts and feeling and act according to reason and objective value.
Conversely, the non-rational types are not beyond or contrary to reason, but rather are
simply not grounded in reason and prefer existential judgments (Jung, 1950).
Each individual habituates a set of the eight types in order to adapt to the
environment. For each combination, for instance extrovert-thinking, the opposite pairing
on introvert-feeling exist in the same individual. The individual’s type is the most
developed of the pair and this type prevails in the conscious. The lesser developed pair
resides in the unconscious. The shadow archetype would have type exactly opposite of
that type expressed in the conscious. The pairings are mutually exclusive, but Jung
mentions that no pure type actually exists, but only gradients. No one would be all
sensing and no feeling, for instance.
Archetypes influence the unconscious. Attitude and function types operate in the
conscious. All together, a sense of the uniqueness of each individual emerges. Some are
quiet introvert thinkers while others are rowdy extravert sensors. But what is the driving
force that motivates any particular type of behavior? What needs cause an individual to
think or act in any particular way? Abraham H. Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs
supplies an answer to these fundamental questions.

The hierarchy needs.
The context for the theories of intelligence is myopically centered on a singular
individual within a culture. Likewise, personality types juxtapose singular individuals
within a larger species-wide domain. Describing the individual as a particle eluting the
“flavor” of the substrate culture does nothing to explain the dynamic interaction between
the individual and the environment. The psychological types of Jung colorfully describe
the “flavor” of individuals. However, terms such as introvert and extrovert are nothing
more than labels—a mere taxonomy of personality types. Static labeling obviates the
dynamic interaction of the individual with the environment. A holistic approach considers
the individual in combination with the environment where the parts are interdependent.
Including interdependency incorporates the dynamic tension between the individual and
the environment.
Similar to Piaget’s concept of how the individual creates schemas to reconcile
external stimuli by assimilation and accommodation, the individual performs a coping
act to reconcile the dynamic tension created by the interdependency with the
environment. Patterns of these coping acts constitute syndromes that are stable and
resistant to change. Clusters of these the patterns can be classified and they arrange in a
hierarchy of need (Maslow, 1954).
“Man is wanting animal and rarely reaches a state of complete satisfaction except
for a short time.” (Maslow, 1954, p. 69). No anthropological difference across cultures
exists for the desire to satisfy certain basic needs. The universality of certain needs is akin
to the universality of the Jungian archetypes. The only difference between cultures is in
how satisfaction of needs is sought. That culture plays a part in the means to satisfaction
is not surprising considering Vygotsky’s strong implication of culture in learning. Since
Maslow (1954) considered the individual to be an integrated whole (as part of a holistic
concept), it is the whole being that is wanting. Thus, the driving force—the motivation—
for human behavior is the seeking of satisfaction for the universal basic needs.
Clusters of coping acts constitute the universal basic needs. The needs arrange in
a hierarchy of prepotency, meaning that certain of the needs are more strongly motivated
to be satisfied by the individual than are others. The most prepotent need of the hierarchy
is the physiological need to maintain homeostasis of the body. Homeostasis is the
physical requirement to maintain the equilibrium of bodily functions. Satisfaction of the
physiological needs predominates until they are satisfied. Eating, sleeping, and sex
conscript all of the individual’s sensory apparatus until homeostasis is achieved. Safety
needs predominate once the physiological needs are met. The need for clothing, shelter,
relief from actual or perceived physical harm preoccupies the individual. Following
satisfactions of the safety needs on the hierarchy is the need for belongingness and love.
This need is not synonymous with sex, because this need requires both giving and
receiving by the individual with others. Having satisfied the need for belonging, the next
level of the hierarchy is the need for esteem. This need includes reputation, confidence,
and competence. This need also requires other individuals to some extent so as to provide
a measure of feedback. The highest level of the hierarchy of needs is self-actualization.
This is a state of complete personal knowledge and acceptance (Maslow, 1954).
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is linear from the physiological needs up to the level
of self-actualization. Esteem satisfaction may occur before belonging satisfaction in some
cases, but in no case is needs satisfaction a motivator of behavior. Rather, it is the

unsatisfied needs that motivate behavior. The needs are satisfied in relative percentages:
the more satisfied needs underlie the less satisfied needs, and this gradient creates the
hierarchal structure. If a higher need ceases to be fulfilled, then the lower needs re-
emerge.
Maslow (1954) noted that individuals may possess differing sensitivities to the
needs and require varying levels of satisfaction. Also, certain preconditions are required
for needs satisfaction such as freedom to speak or to act. Inhibiting cognition,
intelligence, or learning can also inhibit needs satisfaction. If needs satisfaction can be
affected by intelligence, then a biological basis for needs satisfaction follows from the
facts of a biological basis for intelligence per the ideas Ratey and Piaget. Maslow also
comments that needs satisfaction is mostly an unconscious activity of the average person.
Other contents of the unconscious are the Jungian archetypes, so perhaps Maslow’ needs
impact the personification of the anima or animus in terms of the sex need, or the shadow
in the self-esteem need. Further, since the needs are universal, a framework for
classifying personality based on similar status of needs satisfaction might be possible as
holistic rather than atomistic method (Maslow, 1954).
The self-actualizing individual is at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,
having satisfied to a great extend all of the underlying needs. One characteristic that
Maslow noted about self-actualized individuals is their ability to judge people correctly.
This ability may be related to the two personal intelligences that Gardner construes as
emotional intelligence. Ergo, self-actualized people probably have a high level of
emotional intelligence. Self-actualized individuals are also more perceptive to what is
rather to mere wishes, being unafraid of the unknown, and are more compatible with
ambiguity. The psychological profile of the self-actualized person may not equate exactly
to any of the Jungian types, but since the qualities of the self-actualized individual are
subjective in tone, the introvert aspect may be strongest at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy.
Maslow deferred this argument by saying that self-actualized individuals display a blithe
detachment rather than true introversion (Maslow, 1954). Oddly, Maslow’s thinking on
detachment conflicts with the basic need of belongingness.
Maslow elaborates on the self-actualized individual: these individuals abhor
short-comings, laziness, thoughtlessness, and they also lack an attitude of defensiveness.
They reject artificiality. These attributes comport to the Jungian thinking or feeling
functional types, indicating that the self-actualized individual operates in a rational rather
than non-rational frame of mind.
The need for homeostasis may inspire the idea that behavior is in part instinctive.
Maslow realized that the basic needs may be innate to some extent and some capacities
may be hereditary. Although some human behavior may be instinctive, it can be
suppressed by learning culture. Instincts can completely disappear by human suppression
unlike in lower animals where they cannot. Observably then, a biologically driven
instinct can be expunged by cognitive adaptability. Instincts and adaptability are off-
setting. The more of one that is observed, the less of the other is observed. This effect can
alter needs satisfaction and therefore ascension on the hierarchy of needs. Maslow cited
Holocaust survivors who never regained certain needs even after their liberation from the
death camps because of severe needs deprivation (Maslow, 1954).

Building a construct of personality.
The observable characteristics of individuals stem from the common root of
membership in the human race. Jung proposed universal archetypes, primordial and
ancient images, to which all people innately relate. The idea of a collective unconscious
ties all people from all times together under a single umbrella of shared experience, the
sine qua non of being human. Maslow proposed that humans have a set of basic needs
that motivate behavior. The set of needs of Maslow encompass the full range of human
experience from benign sleep to the most satiating thoughts possible. Humans have a
common set of drivers to reconcile themselves to existence (Jung, 1950,1959; Maslow,
1954).
Given the plasticity of the brain, each individual is capable of formulating a
unique mechanism for comprehension of environmental and cultural stimuli. Jung’s
concept of the conscious and the unconscious implicate the mechanism of the flow of
psychic energy to create the effects of introversion or extraversion. Furthermore, the
thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition forms of perception reflect the model the of
individual’s observable behavior. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs provide motivation for
behavior. The level of satisfaction affects the overt behavior in terms of how the sensory
apparatus is employed. Needs satisfaction can be over-ridden by individual preference,
and this very fact is the kernel of individuality. Humans develop individual preferences to
reconcile themselves to existence (Maslow, 1954).
Culture influences the development of intelligence, and intelligence influences
individual preferences for cognition. Jung’s universal archetypes and the collective
unconscious provide cohesion across cultures. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs stipulate a

linearity of behavior based on levels of need satisfactions. The chain of reasoning from
intelligence through culture and needs to the precipitation of individuality is prima facie
evidence that the interaction of humans among themselves is a factor in evoking
personality. Humans operate in response to culture and the environment to reconcile to
existence (Maslow, 1954).
A concise construct of personality can be distilled from these theories: Personality
emerges from a common set of perceptions and needs that are a priori necessary for
survival as a human being. Humans have the individual capacity to adapt to the
environment by preferences of cognition. The collection of individual cognitive responses
to the environment constitutes personality.
A question of interaction.
Overlap between the construct of intelligence and the construct of personality is
not obvious. Conceptual language about intelligence relies on abstract arguments such as
schema, objects, symbols, and other verbal contrivances to explain something that is
internal to the individual. Intelligence can be easily demonstrated verbally or physically,
but it remains wholly internal, abstract, ephemeral, and without substance. Intelligence is
a phenomenon of purely mental mechanisms. Personality is likewise a purely mental
product, but is manifested externally as a relationship with other individuals. The
question remains as to how the mental internally relating mechanisms of intelligence
combine with the mental externally relating personality. Intelligence and personality must
interweave since they are both mental, and since they both co-exist in a singular
individual.
A Paradigm of Observable Human Interaction
Translating from mental to physical.
Intelligence is an emergent property of the brain, but it has no substance.
Intelligence has no mass, no volume, and no potential energy. One might quibble that
intelligence does have substance since it resides in the physical mass of the brain (Ratey,
2001). But exceptions to this presumption logically untie intelligences from the brain
substance. The neurons of comatose people fire, but there is no evidence of intelligence.
A worm has a brain, but it is not considered intelligent. Savants and prodigies possess
extraordinary intelligence, but their brains are indistinguishable from the brains of
ordinary people (Ratey, 2001). Intelligence is a non-corporeal extant property that simply
is. Perturbing is the observation that the construct of intelligence is a tautology in that it
requires intelligence to comprehend intelligence.
Of course, intelligence can be operationalized by physical means such as by
language or by rearrangement of things in the environment. Operationalization of
intelligence manifest in forms detectable by the sensory apparatus of other people offers
the opportunity for transmittal to occur. When the internal machinations of one person
are transformed into detectable form and when these forms are detected by another
person, then a true human interaction has occurred. Transmittal has occurred.
A fault of the intelligence theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Ratey is that they are
in a sense dehumanized, since they do not discuss the key link of transmittal of
intelligence and personality between people. Their theories seek to conceptualize the
non-corporeal extant property of intelligence, but their theories are evident only during or
after an act of transmittal.

Personality and the psychological types are no less mental non-corporeal figments
than is intelligence. The difference between the constructs of personality and intelligence
is that understanding personality is not a tautology. One can comprehend personality
without reference to itself. One does not need a specific personality type to recognize a
different personality type. Personality types are distinguishable taxonomically based on
descriptors of language and action. Introverts are distinguishable from extraverts by the
way they speak and act. Jung said that even the conscious and unconscious psyche were
empirical observations (Jung, 1959). A presumption in recognizing personality types is
that transmittal has occurred just as is required in detecting intelligence. Profoundly
different is that the transmittal of personality type is “flavored” by culture, individual
experience, and personal preference (Jung, 1950, 1959; Maslow, 1954). Personality has
no meaning in isolation. At least two people are necessary for transmittal of personality
since personality requires a real-time evaluation of one person by another. Intelligence,
however, can transmitted by involvement of but a single person. An act of intelligence
can be evidenced by a physical manipulation which can occur without real-time
evaluation. In both cases by means of transmittal, the mental non-corporeal figment has
become physical.
The cultural substrate.
Cultural differences have been implicated in how intelligence and personalities
evolve. It is tempting is to think that culture emerges ex nihilo. But since culture is man-
made it must be a result of intelligence and personality transmittal. (The various
differences between cultures such as language, style of dress, or name of deity is
superfluous since these things are by-products of intelligence and personality). Since
intelligence and personality evolve by cultural influence and since culture is man-made, it
follows that the real environmental substrate for human development is other people.
By unfortunate circumstances, a young girl was locked in a basement in Los
Angeles and left alone for 13 years. The so-called parents only fed this child, and the
child had no other human contact. The girl grew into a woman, but was severely
handicapped mentally and emotionally. She was remanded to a mental institution for
continued care (Ratey, 2001). This horrific tale underscores that fact that humans need
each other for normal, healthy development of intelligence and personality. People are,
all together, the environmental substrate that generates the distinctive features of homo
sapiens: intelligence and individualized personality.
Via transmittal of intelligence and personality, people have banded together in
groups to accomplish a vast array of task. Planting and harvesting crops, hunting parties
for meat, building shelters, fabricating machines, and going to the moon are but a few
reminders of the benefits of cooperation. None of these tasks would be possible if people
did not interface one on one at some point. The effect of cooperation of people for
survival is profoundly obvious.
Cooperation is so commonplace that it is taken for granted, but it constitutes a
paradigm of observable human interaction. The preceding development of a construct of
intelligence begins laying the foundation for the paradigm. Intelligence is necessary for
comprehending the environment (Piaget, 1950). Personality is the individualization of
the psyche (Jung, 1959). Both intelligence and personality merge into amalgam of human
sentience. The fact that culture is man-made by transmittal of intelligence and personality
is possible only by cooperation. Without cooperation, all humans would be as
unfortunately handicapped as the L.A. girl.
The paradigm of observable human interaction is simply that human sentience
engenders cooperation throughout the course of human development.
Summary of Breadth Component
The Breadth component delves into the theoretical constructs of intelligence and
personality as a practical and useful foundation for understanding, managing and
measuring the dynamics of human interaction. Ratey (2001) clearly established the fact
that individual brains are similar but differ at the cellular level. Piaget (1959) showed
that individual intelligence develops similarly but differs by age range. Vygotsky (1978)
added a social variable. Jung (1950) divided the psyche into the unconscious and the
conscious. Further Jungian divisions are introversion and extraversion. Maslow (1954)
layered basic needs in a hierarchy. All of the theorists and the permutations of their
multivariate factors provide plenty of fuel for a lively, diverse, and possibly unpredictable
human dynamic interface.
Producing productive and useful cooperation beneficial to society could be in
serious jeopardy considering the potential volatility caused by the random walk of
humans in their environment. Billions of people populate the earth, each with a vast
array of personality and intelligence flavors. Yet human civilization and all of its cultures
are not in disarray. In fact, culture and societies are quite orderly. The paradigm of
observable human interaction provides the ordering principle. Drawing directly from the
theoretical roots of Jung, the archetypes underlie a common collective unconscious. All
humans are the same at some primordial level. Maslow (1954) considered his hierarchy
of needs to be universal. The basic needs augment the similarity between humans. These
universals serve as a stable platform from which individual diversity can blossom.
Thanks to the work of Howard Gardner, intelligence can be classified into the narrow
range of the seven multiple intelligences. Personality differences can also be classified
into a narrow range of eight distinct types. These theories at first appear to spawn a
cacophony of potential disharmony among people, but on closer inspection they produce
a cohesive symphony of very manageable parameters. These parameters can serve to
coordinate and manage observable human interaction. The paradigm can be controlled,
and harmonious benefits to society can be obtained.
The usefulness of these theories in understanding and managing of human
interaction rests on evaluation of the dynamic intelligence and personality attributes
between people. Cooperative assemblies of people form because of the re-enforcing
nature of schemas derived from the universal needs and the collective unconscious. But,
since people vary in personality types, the level of needs satisfaction will vary across
members of the group. Cooperation could fail if the personality types within the group do
not work well together to create a satisfying level cooperation for all the involved
individuals. The paradigm of observable human interaction states only that cooperation is
engendered by human sentience, but it says nothing about whether the cooperation is
beneficial for all parties. A subversion of the paradigm is the fact that people do not
always cooperate for mutually beneficial purposes.
Armed with the knowledge of the theories of intelligence and personality, it is
reasonable to pursue a course of pairing individuals so as to produce mutually beneficial
cooperation and to abate the potential for societal conflict. Within these theories, the
stages of intelligence development can be employed for pairing the most compatible
arrangement of people. Age ranges can be used to align similar intellectual abilities as
determined by Piaget. Signs, symbols, and tools can be used to influence the Zone of
Proximal Development to encourage learning on tasks (Vygotsky, 1978). Knowledge of
the archetypes offers a chance to assume similarities between different cultures, since the
archetypes are universal (Jung, 1950). Comprehending the contents of the conscious
versus the unconscious in terms of introversion and extraversion sheds light on thinking,
feeling, sensing, and intuition (Jung, 1959). Assessing the level of satisfaction of the
basic needs addresses motivation (Maslow, 1954).
The theories, constructs, and the paradigm discussed in the Breadth component
are the primary sources for understanding human development. Academic and clinical
research has extrapolated these theories and all of their fundamentals into a variety of
measurement instruments. Psychometrics are used to identify, quantify, and qualify the
fundamentals of these theories. Analysis of these metrics provides a reasonable
methodology to assess the probable outcome of observable human interaction in terms of
specific pairings of individuals. As a consequence, the human dynamics of cooperation
can be managed by exploiting personality paradigms yielding a higher utility of human
potential for the benefit of society.
The ensuing Depth Section will analyze current academic literature on the
measurement methodology founded on the theories of human development that lead to
the development of useful exploitation of personality paradigms.

DEPTH
SBSF 8220: CURRENT RESEARCH IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Annotated Bibliography
Cann, A. (2004). Rated Importance of Personal Qualities Across Four Relationships.

Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 322-334. doi: Article.
This study attempts to uncover stable and important qualities relevant in common
relationship types. Four relationship types (a) “friend”, (b) “romantic partner”, (c) “your
boss”, and (d) “employee of yours” were rated across 34 personal qualities. Varimax
factor analysis indicated four significant factors that that people value in these
relationships: intimacy, dependability, achievement, and kindness. The four relationship
types were cross-tabulated against the four factors to determine the importance of each
factor with regard to each relationship type. Importance of intimacy was highest for
“romantic partners” and lowers for “your boss”. Importance of achievement was highest
for “your boss” and lowest for “friend”. Importance of dependability was highest for
“your boss” and lowest for “friend”. Importance of kindness was equality important (or
unimportant) across all the relationship types. The results were as expected, except for
the relatively flat level of importance of kindness.
This qualitative study suffers from the common problem of subjectivity in
characterizing the relationship types and in labeling the factors. Other relationships
dimensions would probably generate other factors, and the author duly notes this
weakness of his study. One-third of the sampling frame was college students, so
assessments of “your boss” and “romantic” partner may not hold much validity with
regard to life experience, however, the author notes that age was not a factor except for
quality of conscientiousness. Gender affects arose only in the kindness quality where it
appears to be more important to women than to men. Also, the “your boss” relationship
showed a pronounced need for kindness implicating a skewing effect due to leadership
effects. This finding validates the author’s purpose of the study which is to discover what
factors influence these specific relationship types.
This study is useful in determining what general factors people value in various
common relationships. The relationship categories are common, and the factors emergent
from the study appear to be ubiquitous. This methodology could be used on other
specifically defined relationship types of any particular interest to determine important
and influential factors.
Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Relation of an Ability Measure of
Emotional Intelligence to Personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(2),
306-320. doi: Article.
The MEIS instrument is an ability-based test of emotional intelligence (EI) as
opposed to a personality-based test. The MEIS tests EI on a four-branch model on (a)
identifying emotions, (b) emotional facilitation of thought, (c) understanding emotions,
and (d) managing emotions. The purpose of this study was to determine the discriminant
validity of the MEIS to personality traits and the convergent validity of the MEIS to self-
reported measures of EI. Component analysis and varimax rotation of MEIS and the
16PF, FISO-B, and SDS personality instruments showed that MEIS measures EI as a
separate construct from personality traits, and it places EI in the framework of an ability-
based intelligence. Ability measured EI may predict career choice, but EI cannot predict
leadership effectiveness or entrepreneurial success. People with high EI desire greater
social involvement and more intimate relationships.

The MEIS instrument to measure EI was compared against three personality
instruments. The veracity of the results of this study depends on the acceptance of the
comparison instruments. Are they reasonable measures of personality, and could other
personality instruments divulge a different result? The sampling frame comprised of 18
-19 year old undergraduate students begs the question of what results would come from a
longitudinal study of the same sample. Is EI stable over time? The authors are the
founders of the MEIS instrument, so self-fulfilling prophesy as to the effective of their
instrument could present a bias. Studies of the MEIS instrument by other researchers
would be interesting.
MEIS measures EI as an ability-based measurement of an intelligence separable
from personality traits. EI has predictive value for career choice and levels of social
involvement. The four branches of EI are substantiated by correlation with observable
personality traits, therefore, it should be possible to work backward through personality
traits to surmise a level of EI.
Cavazos, J. T., & Campbell, N. J. (2008). Cognitive style revisited: The structure X
cognition interaction. Personality & Individual Differences, 45(6), 498-502. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.001.
The constructs of Need for Structure (PNS) and the Need for Cognition (NPC)
were examined to determine their interactions on a general level of negative affect.
Structure represents a tendency to be simple, black and white, and rigid. Cognition
represents a tendency to evaluate and a tolerance for ambiguity. Negative affect is the
representation of the level of anxiety, fear of invalidity, and learned helplessness.
Conversely, positive affect is the representation of self-efficacy, internal locus of control,
extraversion, and agreeableness. The four factor cross-tabulation of high/low PNS and
high/low NPC resulted in four defined groups: (a) Structured Misers, (b) Structured
Cognizers, (c) Unstructured Cognizers, and (d) Unstructured Misers. Each group showed
a consistent pattern and predilection for mutually exclusive pairing of a high or low need
for structure and cognition. The level of negative affect also patterned these groupings.
The results were not significant with regard to the Five Factor Model (FFM) but this
study suggests that the interaction of need for structure or for cognition may underlie the
FFM factors.
This study cross-tabulates the instruments of dipolar constructs to determine
possible interaction. If the instruments PNS and NPC have been validated individually
for construct, divergent, and convergent validity, then this present study should not
presume that combining PNS and NPC would also produce validity. The author caveats
the results by noting the limitation of this study due to self-reported measures and of the
correlated nature of the results. The use of undergraduate students in a narrow age range
is also a particular limitation of the results. The group names are superfluous and non
sequitur to the actual meaning of the results.
Cross-tabulating the constructs of structure versus cognition to determine any
inter-play is useful in furthering the discussion of basic personality differences. However,
the value of this paper is reduced due to its narrow focus and lack of substantive impact
on other personality paradigms, especially the FFM. Adding irrelevant group names to
the overcrowded taxonomy of cognition and personality weakens the veracity of this
study.
Cools, E., & van den Broeck, H. (2007). Development and Validation of the Cognitive
Style Indicator. Journal of Psychology, 141(4), 359-387. doi: Article.
Cognitive style is the way people perceive stimuli and how this information is
used to guide behavior. Cognitive style is at the cross-roads of personality and cognition.
Inductive and deductive methods produced the 30 item instrument Cognitive Style
Indicator (CoSI) comprised of three styles knowing, planning, and creating. CoSI was
tested against two instruments of personality, two instruments of cognition, and one
measure of academic performance. Convergent and divergent validity of the three styles
were confirmed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Key finding showed
that people with the planning and knowing style operate in the rational and analytic
mode. Creative style people prefer dynamic structures and open-ended possibilities.
Significant correlation of the CoSI and subscales of the personality instruments was
found. CoSI also correlated with subscales of the cognition instruments, but not with the
academic measure. The CoSi also showed good correlation with certain job categories.
The authors conclude that the CoSi splits the analytic-intuitive model of cognitive styles
into a more useful three part model.
The premise of this study was to discover the bridging factors between personality
and cognition. Literature reviews used in the study considered the existing body of
knowledge; inductive and deductive methodology in addition to expert judging proved a
comprehensive approach to EFA and CFA factor analysis. Discussing the opportunity to
use the CoSI in organizations for human resources recruiting and team-building placed
the CoSI in a practical and useful framework. This is a comprehensive study using all of
the best research techniques for social science research.
This paper is of the highest value for understanding the current state of cognitive
style research. The use of EFA, CFA, inductive and deductive methodology is
comprehensive and thorough. The tie-in to personality measures and cognitive measure is
extremely valuable in linking these two bodies of knowledge together through the factors
of cognitive styles.
Eva Cools, & Herman Van Den Broeck. (2008). Cognitive styles and managerial
behaviour: a qualitative study. Education + Training, 50(2), 103-114. doi: Article.
This qualitative study examined the linkage between Knowing, Planning, and
Creating cognitive styles and managerial behavior characterized by two factors: task-
orientation and people-orientation. These two factors were cross-tabulated against the
three cognitive styles. The results indicated that tasks-orientation aligns with the
Knowing and Planning styles, while people-orientation aligns with the Creative style. The
study concluded that cognitive style affects managerial behavior.
The sample size of 553 was reduced to the 100 most extreme cases which were
coded for analysis in a qualitative software package. The cross-tabulated results revealed
a detailed description of task-orientation and people-orientation managers in terms of
their predilections in interpersonal relationships and in decision making behavior. These
findings strengthen prior quantitative findings that varying cognitive styles affect
decision making behavior. The factors of task-orientation and people-orientation seemed
arbitrary, and the results were subjectively coded. Given the authors’ prior involvement in
cognitive styles, bias in the results may have occurred.
Qualitative research deepens and enriches understanding of complex topics. This
article adds better description and clarity to the context of how decision making by
managers can be affected by cognitive styles. Practical implication of the research
suggests how self-aware managers can improve their performance. Future research in
actual organization using this approach could provide understanding of the effects of
cognitive styles from the perspective of colleagues and subordinates.
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary Traits of Eysenck's P-E-N System:
Three-and Five-Factor Solutions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
69(2), 308-317. doi: Article.
The Eysenck P-E-N (PEN) system describes personality by three higher order
domains named Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. These domains are
comprised of personality traits that are also common to the Five Factor Model (FFM)
domains. Traits common to the 3-domain system PEN and to the 5-domain system FFM
were analyzed by factor analysis to determine the factor validity of PEN. PEN was
measured by the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP) test and the FFM was measured by
the NEO-PI-R test. Convergent and discriminant validity of the EPP scales was strong,
and the EPP correlated with age, education and gender. Analysis of factor rotation
showed that EPP and FFM both measure the same intended constructs, but showed weak
support for actual factor assignment across only three domains. The PEN Psychoticism
(P) collapses the Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C) factors of FFM. Further
research was suggested to elaborate on where P is a better predictor of real life results
than A or C separately.
Deciding on the number of high order domains of personality is important in
arriving at the most parsimonious model. Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest
solution is usually the best one. However, contrary to Occcam’s generality, this study
indicates that a 3 factors solution may obfuscate important distinctions of personality
better made in a 5 factor solution. The FFM is lexical based, and it has appeared over and
over in personality model derivation. The authors contend that since the FFM is
ubiquitous that it is more than reasonable to place the EPP within a 5 factor solution. The
factor analysis method is always open to interpretation of the labeling of the factors. This
study depends on the a priori labeling of the FFM.
Placing the EPP 3 factor model within the 5 factor FFM model is important to
better understand the FFM. This study indicates that P is conflated to A and C. This study
admits that further research is needed
Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional

intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and group
citizenship behaviours. Personality & Individual Differences, 36(6), 1443. doi:
10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00240-X.
The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is an ability-
based measure of emotional intelligence (EI) consisting of four branches of ability:
perceiving, facilitating, understanding, and managing emotions. This study tested the
construct validity of MSCEIT against citizenship, group performance, and decision-
making criteria. MSCEIT- instrument was factor analyzed against the NEO-FFI
instrument and also against two contrived experiments designed to elicit EI as
performance traits. Factor analysis produced two factors about which the four MSCEIT
branches clustered. Only the NEO-Openness scale correlated with all four of the
MSCEIT scales. NEO-Extraversion scale correlated with the MSCEIT Agreeableness and
Management scales. Women scored higher on the MSCEIT than did men, and age was
negatively correlated with MSCEIT. No group performance or citizenship criteria
correlated with MSCEIT. Overall, the four branch model of MSCEIT was not
substantiated.
Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso who created the MSCEIT explicitly state that this
instrument is an ability-based and not a trait-based assessment of EI. Conflating EI with

personality measures is outside the purview of the MSCEIT, so the lack of correlation
with the NEO personality traits is not surprising. That only two factors emerged in the
factor analysis is at odds with the factor analysis by Mayer, et al. who factored four items.
Sampling frame differences may account for this discrepancy. The point of this study was
to find predictive power in the MSCEIT for individual and group performance. None was
found, due in part to the mismatch of EI as an ability-based construct rather than a trait-
based construct.
Considering the stated purpose of Mayer, et al. for the MSCEIT as an ability-
based measure of EI, this study collided EI issues with trait-based personality issues. The
success in assessing this comparison rests on the veracity of the cognitive tests used for
group and individual study. The authors admit that their attempt to do this was totally
contrived and without any substantive basis. This weakens the study and reduces its value
in examining the construct of MSCEIT and its predictive power in criteria such as group
or individual work-related performance.
Eames, C., & Stewart, K. (2008). Personal and relationship dimensions of higher
education science and engineering learning communities. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 26(3), 311-321. doi: 10.1080/02635140802276686.
Relationship dimension between teachers and students in a higher education
engineering university were examined a socio-cultural context. Questionnaires,
interviews and observations were used in quantitatively and qualitatively in a longitudinal
study to determine the effects of teacher-student interaction, student-student interaction,
and class size on the learning environment. Social interaction of teachers knowing
student’s names, encouraging questions, and creating a relaxed learning environment
improved learning. Breaking down the power divide between the teacher and student also
created a better learning environment. Smaller class size also contributed to a better
learning environment. Teacher availability and approachability builds rapport that
student’s found vitally important in the teacher-student relationship.
No tables of statistical results or comparative data supported the claims of the
authors other than block quotations from selected participants. The structure of the paper
is not in the form of a rigorous academic sociology study, although it contains adequate
reference citations. The conclusions offered are not substantiated by reference to the data
collected. Allusions to rapport and relationship building with regard to improving the
learning environment could be explained by the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
Lev Vygotsky proposed the ZPD as the interface between a child and an adult where
learning occurs. The ZPD model is applicable to the student-teacher relationship.
This article is useful as an example of the Vygotsky ZPD and in part an example
of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Implications of the impact of culture on learning are
demonstrated in this article. Culture influences the development of intelligence and also
impinges on needs satisfaction. In a negative sense, the lack of substantiation of the
claims in this article shows how important scholarly presentation is in academic
discussions.
Francis, L. J., Craig, C. L., & Robbins, M. (2007). The Relationship between
Psychological Type and the Three Major Dimensions of Personality. Current
Psychology, 25(4), 257-271. doi: Article.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPP) are compared using SPSS statistics software. MBTI conceptualizes
Jung’s theories and that EPP is a higher-order factor analysis of personal differences. The
extravert categories of both scales were positively correlated as were the EPP
psychoticism scale and the MBTI perceiving scales. Negative correlation was found
between the EPP psychoticism and MBTI judging scales as well as between the
introversion and extraversion of both scales. The findings show that the two personality
instruments map onto each other in predictable fashion, that introversion and extraversion
are orthogonal divisions of personality, and that impulsivity relates the two scales through
EPP psychoticism and MBTI perceiving. The conclusion is that these two models of
personality interact dynamically.
The expressed purpose of this paper was to extend research on these two
personality instruments. The methodology, sample selection, and test administration to a
sample of undergraduate students was straightforward. But many studies use only college
students, so a narrow age range may present a biased result compared to a broader age
range in the sample set. Nothing new about the MBTI or the EPP was revealed in this
study other than a correlated matrix of mapping one set of factors onto another.
Provided that the sample age feature does not present a biased result, a correlation
study such as this one might be useful in re-interpreting one instrument in terms of the
other. This would permit widening the effects of other studies that used one of these tests
against other measures not present in this study.
Furnham, A., Dissou, G., Sloan, P., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and
Intelligence in Business People: A Study of Two Personality and Two Intelligence
Measures. Journal of Business & Psychology, 22(1), 99-109. doi:
10.1007/s10869-007-9051-z.
Regression analysis on two personality tests and two intelligence tests showed
that personality traits can predict intelligence scores. The personality tests Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Five Factor Model (FFM) (using the NEO-PI test) were
regressed against the Graduate Management Assessment (GMA) and the Watson-Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) using a large sample (8709) of middle managers
in England. Personality factors seem to influence Fluid Intelligence (Gf) to interact with
Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) as mechanism of adaptation to academic and intellectual
environments. Introvert personality types showed a slightly higher positive correlation to
better scores on both Gc and Gf. The MBTI Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Perceiving
types associated with the lower intelligence score. The FFM Openness factor O5:Ideas is
the best predictor of higher intelligence. FFM Conscientiousness factor C3:Order is the
best predictor of lower intelligence. The FFM predicts intelligence better than does the
MBTI.
Personality and intelligence are two independent constructs. The regression
showed a small but significant correlation. Regression does not indicate cause and effect,
only covariance. Nevertheless, the authors try to explain the correlation is terms of cause
and effects as in “neuroticism undermines people’s critical thinking”. The authors
postulate how personality and intelligence interact to affect each other, but the defer
discovery of the actual mechanisms and processes to trait psychologists.
Tying intelligence to personality is important in comprehending the total human.
Finding a correlation between separate constructs is significant, as is a direction of
prediction of intelligence. The major weakness in this article is that regression does not
explain cause and effect mechanisms. The mechanisms, if known, would be of much
greater value in understanding the interplay of both constructs.
Greene, L., & Burke, G. (2007). Beyond Self-Actualization. Journal of Health & Human
Services Administration, 30(2), 116-128. doi: Article.
Self-actualization was the apex of Maslow’s original hierarchy of needs.
Subsequent to his death in 1971, Maslow posthumously postulated being-values. The

deficit- needs of the hierarchy are (a) physiological, (b) safety, (c) belonging, and (d)
esteem. The being-needs are (e) self-actualization, and (f) selfless-actualization. The
authors coined the tem selfless-actualization to describe what Maslow’s work suggested
as a “move from self to other”. Attributes of this selfless level include social justice,
creativity, and transformative thinking. Ways to attain this ultimate level were suggested
by late works of Maslow: encouraging introspective expressions via art outlets,
understanding polarities, and providing for structures that stimulate individuality.
Adding another need to the original hierarchy of needs suggests an evolution of
the concept even by Maslow himself. However, the altruistic tone of the author’s
description of Maslow’s posthumous work and forced characterization of it in terms of a
new need may be a case of optimistic exuberance. Maslow’s late work Farther Reaches
of Human Nature published after his death intimated additional human capabilities
beyond the self-actualization apex of the hierarchy that the author paraphrases as a “move
from self to other”. Taking these selfless ideals to the level of a need (as in the sense of
the original needs) appears to be misapplication of Maslow’s intentions.
This article clearly restates the original hierarchy of needs, and discusses
additional ideas from Maslow’s late work. Defining the original hierarchy as content-
theory based on premises laid down by Maslow is accurate, but adding another need
based on speculation of Maslow’s furtherance of human nature confuses two separate
ideas: needs and desires.
Harvath, T. A. (2008). What if Maslow Was Wrong? American Journal of Nursing,
108(4), 11. doi: Article.

The nursing profession is trained on the concept of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
such that they understand that it is unmet needs which motivate of behavior. Maslow
stated that fulfilled needs do not provide motivation, but rather unmet needs do. In the
case of geriatric care, a patient’s need for esteem as expressed the desire for
independence may contraindicate the more basic need of safety. The dilemma for the
nurse practitioner is whether to acquiesce to the patient’s more urgent unmet need for
safety or to permit to higher need fulfillment. The practical common sense action seems
to contradict Maslow’s theory.
This article was written by health care provider using the example of an elderly
woman who fell and could not take care of herself physically any longer. The woman
refused to enter a nursing home since it would cost her esteem need in preference to her
safety need. Maslow said that sometimes the belonging need and esteem need can be
inverted in fulfillment, but he did not say that in any case that the safety need would be
preempted by a higher need. This article mentions that the elderly woman suffered from
dementia. The problem with this article is not with Maslow’s needs hierarchy, but rather
one of deferring to the personal rights of a person.
This article is important as an example of how the theory of needs satisfaction
interfaces with practicalities of the real world. It also demonstrates that Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs is flexible and that levels of satisfaction of higher needs cannot be
undermined by the appearance of unmet needs at a lower level.
Ivashchenko, A., & Novikov, D. (2006). Model of the hierarchy of needs. Automation &
Remote Control, 67(9), 1512-1517. doi: 10.1134/S0005117906090128.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs suggests that the primary needs are fulfilled first,
and then the secondary needs are filled, each in succession and each with some degree of
fulfillment. This article attempts to formulate a mathematical expression on the
fulfillment of needs based on a weighting of importance for each need and on a degree of
satisfaction. The mathematical model equates the allocation of resources to achieve a
level of motivation for employees of a business.
Maslow said that needs satisfaction is not a motivator of behavior but rather
unmet needs drive behavior. Maslow also stated that needs satisfaction is not absolute. It
is the relative satisfaction of needs that urges a person’s motivation upwards on the
hierarchy. These authors use mathematical weighting of needs and satisfaction. A
mathematical expression to formulate needs satisfaction phenomena might be useful in
Monte Carlo simulations where resource allocations are varied. The authors assume that
resources are linear with time. This is an unrealistic assumption of real life events.
The special case of resource availability in a linear continuous mathematical
function may be useful in modeling motivation for demonstration purposes. Human
behavior is not linear and continuous, so the value of this article is restricted to a very
special case.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004a). Emotional Intelligence: Theory,
Findings, and Implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215. doi: Article.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is described by a four branch model: (a) the ability to
perceive emotions, (b) for emotions to enhance thinking, (c) to understand emotions, and
(d) to regulate emotions to promote intellectual growth. EI is measured by the MSCEIT
test instrument with proven construct, ecological and content validity. Expert and
consensus methods confirm the convergent and divergent nature of the MCSEIT test on
an Experiential Area consisting of perceiving and facilitating emotions, and on a Strategic
Area consisting of understanding and managing emotions. Factor analysis of the test fit
these four branches closely. The MSCEIT correlates strongly with verbal, social, and
general IQ measures, and also with the Big Five Personality Traits. EI positively predicts
academic success and pro-social behavior, but varies inversely with deviant behavior,
such as bullying, tobacco use, and drug abuse. EI favorably influences customer service
type jobs. EI cannot be trained into people, but it may have a physical brain-based
existence. Most criticism of EI involves naïve misconception, self-reported measures, and
the need for more research.
EI is a relatively newly proposed type of intelligence, having been introduced in
1990. The MSCEIT test correlates strongest with the Five Factor Model (FFM), but the
FFM is known to have lexicographic origin and not a theoretical one, so this comparison
is logically weak. The measures of validity for EI were drawn from expert opinions and
from consensus of subjects. Subjective qualitative measures rather the objective
quantitative measures are dubious. Nevertheless, factor analysis does support the four
branch model for EI. Further, EI does meet the three main criteria of a true intelligence.
Criticism of EI arises from uninformed sources, and this naiveté could stymie future
legitimate research.
This is the seminal article on the deployment of the MSCEIT test instrument for
the measurement of EI. Sufficient correlation of the test to other known measures of IQ
substantiates its construct and predictive validity, and place the test in a strong position
within in the field. The authors provide historical background, address critics, and
proffer practical applications of the tests for predictions, and they suggest ideas for future
research.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004b). A Further Consideration of the Issues
of Emotional Intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 249-255. doi: Article.
The state of emotional intelligence (EI) research concerns issues of theory,
methodology, empirical data, and the future direction of research. Theoretical issues on
the predictive ability of EI depend on the adequacy of existing testing instruments and on
concise and relevant definition of relevant terminology. Scope of EI theory must consider
whether EI is a latent variable of intelligence and whether it includes creativity.
Methodological issues examine the psychometric determination made under expert or
self-reported methods and how these metrics differ from other cognitive test items.
Empirical data issues question the incremental effects characterized in statistical variance
analysis. Future research should examine compare high and low scoring EI individuals to
perhaps arrange EI as a hierarchy of skills and to investigate EI as a true latent
intelligence variable.
The purpose of this article was to summarize the current state of EI research.
Theoretically, EI is misunderstood due to popular claims about its predictive power and
also because of lack of consensus about key terms. The authors offer substantive answers
for these issues and fairly state alternative possibilities that EI has a modicum of
predictive power under limited definitions. Empirical concerns about the data collection
methods and the statistical manipulation of data highlight the sensitivity of EI research to
the myriad opinions about the significance of research findings. This problem hampers
comparability of methods and obfuscates an answer to the incremental validity of EI
results. Future research ideas about a hierarchy of EI skills in intriguing since it relates in
concept to Maslow’s hierarchal structure of needs.

EI research is a relatively new field, so the lack of a concise taxonomy is not
surprising. This article is by John Mayer who invented the MSCEIT instrument, so his
ardent defense of his own work makes this a somewhat biased crusade against all
challengers to his original ideas. However, Mayer is reasonably inclusive to alternate
ideas, which may spawn future productive research on EI. This articles true value is the
clarity that it brings to an otherwise muddy subject.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of
Personality, 57(1), 17-40. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.ep8972588.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a popular personality type indicator
based on the psychology of Carl Jung. MBTI characterized personality by Extraversion
(E), Introversion (N), Sensing (S), Intuition (I), Feeling (F), Thinking (T), Judging (J),
and Perceiving (P). MBTI was tested against the Five Factor Model (FFM). The FFM is
lexical based trait concept modeling Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O),
Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C). Correlation of the MBTI-G and NEO-PI
test forms failed to show that MBTI J/P scale parses the Jungian dominant function from
the Jungian auxiliary function as expected. None of the 16 MBTI appeared to be
qualitatively distinct using the FFM as a basis. The conclusion is that either Jungian
psychology is wrong or that the MBTI does not effectively operationalized Jung’s theory.
The authors suggest using the FFM over the MBTI.
The main difference between MBTI and FFM is that MBTI is theory-based while
FFM is lexical based. The authors are strongly associated with the FFM and they have
tested their NEO-PI against other personality measures. This particular comparison of
MBTI and FFM is important since it ties the taxonomy of the two instruments together.
A serious conjecture about the findings is the doubting of Jungian psychology or the
doubting that MBTI represents it clearly. This ambiguity arises only from the author’s
preference for the FFM. The article uses sound methodology, including self-reported and
peer evaluated results.
Correlating the popular MBTI with the comprehensive FFM is extremely relevant
to understanding the different taxonomies involved in personality typing. Of particular
value is the tenuous relationship of MBTI to the Jungian Theory upon which it depends.
The FFM model, although not theoretically based emerges again as a comprehensive and
clear model for describing personality
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its
Applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215. doi: Article.
The Five Factor Model of Personality (FFM), also known as the Big Five, is a
hierarchal organization of personality traits built on a lexical hypothesis. This hypothesis
says that all important descriptors of personality are encoded in language through its
evolution. Convergent validity of the FFM has been confirmed in joint analysis of the
lexical hypothesis and several questionnaires methods. FFM consists of five traits:
Extraversions (E), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and
Openness (O). Each trait has several associated adjectival descriptors. Some theorists
think that a physiological basis may underlie the FFM; others think it may be product of
evolution and genetics. Cultural evolution may be the better explanation. Longitudinal
studies show continuity of some FFM traits, particularly A. The interpersonal dynamic of
the FFM is unknown, but may relate to expressions of the ego. The FFM has relevance in
organizational and industrial psychology.

The historical development of the FFM is essential to understanding its true
meaning and for comprehending its ubiquity. The FFM emerged from globally diverse
human language descriptions by people about people. That the lexical approach
converges on the theoretical questionnaire approach is significant to show that indeed
five factors are apparently universal. The authors offer their own critique as to whether
the FFM has too few or too many factors, and they express concern over bias in self-
reported data. The implication of physiology and genetics in the expression of the FFM
ties the pure theory of personality to the biological human.
Even though this paper does not present the statistical details of the factor analysis
of how the FFM emerged in the lexical tradition, it certainly references all of the
significant developmental literature. The paper outlines the history, the strengths and
weakness, and the usefulness of the FFM. This article is a mandatory read for currency on
the FFM.
Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. M. (2005). Motivation In Developmental Context: A New

Method For Studying Self-Actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
45(1), 41-53. doi: 10.1177/0022167804269133.
Maslow did not provide scientific rigor to his theory of the hierarchy of needs.
While standards for personality measures exist, no such measurement is available for
assessing needs. The authors used the Reiss Profile (RP) self-reporting instrument
consisting of 15 motives to test the validity of Maslow’s theory. The Reiss Profile had
been previously validated with a Cronbach Alpha of .82, and high test-retest validity. The
findings showed that lower needs were stronger in young people while higher needs were
stronger in older people. The findings confirm Maslow’s idea that needs change as people
mature. Also, the finding support the idea that younger people seek power and leadership
positions more than do older people, which reflects a needs difference between the to age
groups.
The Reiss Profile (RP) is the basis for testing the Maslow Theory. The RP is noted
to have been validated, but the authors subjectively parse the 15 items of the RP against
Maslow’s needs hierarchy. Also, the authors summarily decide that the age of 36 is a cut-
off point between old and young. Further, in the sample, ages ranges of the study are set
at convenience points rather that against any statistical distribution. The useful finding is
that different needs are emphasized at various age ranges. However, this study does not
offer an explanation of the cause and effect connection between age and needs emphasis.
Scientific rigor is essential in gaining consensus on a theory. If the Reiss Profile is
a valid basis for assessing the needs, then other studies can add to these results to
triangulate a real scientific basis for the needs. This article has confirmed that age is a
factor in the strength of needs and notes changes that occur as people mature.
Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., O'Brien, K., MacCann, C., Reid, J., & Maul, A. (2006).
Exploring the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) with established emotions measures. Emotion, 6(4), 663-669. doi:
10.1037/1528-3542.6.4.663.
The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) was analyzed
by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis along with cognitive measures (Gc and
Gf) and measures of emotions (faces and voices). The purpose of the study was to test
whether (a) the MSCEIT-Emotion Perception Branch and the emotions measure operate
on the same latent variable, and (b) the MSCEIT-Understand Branch correlated with Gc.
Results showed that (a) do not measure the same latent variable, and that (b) were
moderately positively correlated. The conclusion of this study indicates that MSCEIT
measures emotional intelligence as a distinct intelligence, but the part of underlying

construct with regard to emotional perception of MSCEIT may not be valid. The authors
cite differences in methodology of assessing facial expression between the two test
instruments as possible source of the discrepancy.
The MSCEIT has been rigorously tested by its creators for construct,
discriminant, and convergent validity. Part of the ongoing concern in assessing the cross-
ties between cognition and personality is one of taxonomy. Further, this study indicates
that testing methodology difference may also create outright discrepancies and weak
correlations between different test instruments which may appear to undermine the
constructs of both intelligence and personality.
Further testing of the foundational test for emotional intelligence (EI) is useful to
fully describe its aspects in more detail and under various conditions. This study indicates
the MSCEIT Branch assessing emotional perception may require additional research on
how to qualitatively assess this feature of the construct of EI.
Schott, R. L. (1992). Abraham Maslow, Humanistic Psychology, And Organizational

Leadership: A Jungian Perspective. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 32(1),
106. doi: Article.
Comparisons of Abraham Maslow’s concept self-actualization and Carl Jung’s
idea on individuation with leadership qualities show a somewhat antithetical result. The
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an extrapolation of the Jungian typology, and it
has been used to describe leadership qualities. Based on a very large database, leaders
and managers in business are primary the Extravert-Sensing-Thinking-Judging (ESTJ)
types per the MBTI. However, self-actualized people are not at all ESTJ, nor are
individuated people. Self-actualized and individuated people have transcended the need
for safety, security, and esteem sought by people striving for executive leadership
positions. The logic is that certain personality types offer a propensity toward self-
actualization and individuation, and these types are antithetical to the ESTJ type.
The Maslow hierarchy of needs and the Jung personality types are clearly
explained in this paper. The interesting explanation of holistic Maslow self-actualized
people in terms of the analytical Jung individuation ties the two theories together in a
plausible and apprehensible way. The motive force is equally divided between the two
theories: Maslow’s needs and Jung’s melding of the conscious and the unconscious
synergize. The self-actualized person is one who is also individuated. This realization
deepens both concepts and offers theoretical and observational force to assessing
managerial qualities. Thus, managers and leaders are not fully developed psychologically
in terms of Maslow and Jung concepts. Even though the ESTJ type yields excellent
stewards of business, the possibility of ethical and moral concerns may arise from these
types.
Theory and practice combine in this paper to reveal a startling fact: people
inclined to pursue power and authority in leadership and management roles are not fully
self-actualized not individuated. Lack of psychological maturity in leaders is a point of
serious concern, so understanding the theoretical roots of this problem is highly pertinent.
Shearer, B. (2004). Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years. Teachers College

Record, 106(1), 2-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00312.x.
This article recaps the state of the theory of Multiple Intelligence (MI) 20 years
after its introduction in 1983 by Howard Gardner. Critics of MI wonder if MI is a valid
representation of the human brain, and question whether MI can improve learning
outcomes. Criticism of MI ranges from “this is not science” to “it’s too complex”.
Gardner actually created a new definition of intelligence that includes the ability to solve
problems, create useful products, and includes situational values. Gardner does not deny
the existence of the general intelligence factor g, but he questions its explanatory power,
since it emphasizes linguistic and logical intelligence. Recent research fails to localize MI
in any one part of the brain, but MI may emerge from sets of systems of brain functions
that discretely model each MI. Current research is untangling the construct validity of MI
and also trying to formulate educational programs to exploit any benefits of MI among
individuals.
This article succinctly recaps each of the MI, and provides a chart of anatomical
parts of the brain implicated in each MI. Advancements on MI come from many
academic areas, including psychology, biology, cognitive science, and education. The
article is slim on specific data, but does provide reference citations to major areas of
research on MI, especially on creating MI schools.
This article pulls together various research prongs surrounding MI. It shows that
MI has been actively pursued in academia and that practical uses for the MI theory are
being tested. Unfortunately, no furtherance of the theory is made, and no real clarity over
controversies is offered.
Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). g and the measurement of Multiple
Intelligences: A response to Gardner. Intelligence, 34(5), 507-510. doi:
10.1016/j.intell.2006.04.006.
Howard Gardner responded to criticism of his theory of Multiple Intelligence
(MI) by proponents of g, a general factor of intelligence, and this article rebuts Gardner’s
critique. A concern by Gardner that g is inter-correlated with separate MI is rebutted by
noting that g can measure non pencil-and-paper tasks, and that g extends beyond merely
“school-like” measures such as linguistic and logico-mathematical abilities. Further, g

relates to the biology of the brain as does MI. The authors note that Gardner’s MI appear
to be blends of g across various cognitive domains, including apparently some features of
personality. g, therefore, describes a general intelligence rather than “special talents”
characterized by the MI.
MI has been under academic scrutiny since its introduction in 1983. g has been a
force in characterizing intelligence for over 100 years. No valid instruments have yet
been devised to test each of the MI. A problem remains, as evident in this academic
argument, about precise terminology and content of the MI theory. MI makes intuitive
sense, and Gardner is clear in his own words about the difficulty of understanding his
new concept. The article is only one side of the argument, so certainty about exactly what
Gardner said and meant is unclear. Apparently g and MI are both have value, and each
may be describing only one particular aspect of this complex topic.
This academic dialog indicates that MI has challenged the monolithic paradigm of
singular measure of intelligence, and the outcome has yet to be determined. This
unsettling disagreement casts doubt on the veracity of either measure as a definitive
characterization of intelligence measurement. The value of this article is to demonstrate
the ongoing dialog between researchers that advances knowledge of the topic.
Summary of annotated bibliography.
The Depth component annotated bibliography evaluates 22 recent peer reviewed
journal articles on issues relating to the theories of intelligence, personality, and
cognition. As a whole, the articles reflect the struggle to define a cohesive taxonomy of
the traits and abilities of intelligence and personality theory. Many of the articles attempt
to correlate the diverse taxonomies to test the construct validity under study. Overall, the
NEO-PI has been determined to be the best representation of personality, and the
MSCEIT has been determined to adequately represent the ability of emotional
intelligence. Standing in the middle of intelligence theory and personality theory is the
recent concept of cognitive styles. A two part model of cognitive style has been resolved
into a definitive three part model. A questionable attempt to extend Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs has been proffered, and a limited mathematical modeling of the needs has been
tried. Overall, the articles come from a variety of fields and address the technical and
theoretical challenges of applying theories of intelligence and personality to real-world
situations.
Literature Review Essay
Theories of intelligence and personality provide a framework for understanding
the psychological aspects individualized human behavior. These theories must be tested
via scientific rigor to confirm their validity. Operationanlizing theory requires translating
the broad language of theory into concrete expressions that can be administered to a set
of test subjects. Various testing and assessing instruments have been devised in order to
operationalize these theories. Data gathered from these testing instruments can be
analyzed to directly apply theory to subjects.
One problem with operationalizing a theory is finding a satisfactory taxonomy to
describe elements of the theory. The taxonomy must converge on the theoretical elements
while at the same time diverge to allow discrimination across the elements. By assuring
convergent and divergent validity across the elements the construct validity of the theory
can be ascertained. The level of confidence obtained from a particular testing instrument
as it reflects the theory is debatable. One instrument or the other may reflect the theory
better. The process is somewhat circular in logic: the actual intent of the theorist must be
surmised from the original conceptual language and then translated into testing language.
Discrepancies, complexities, and omissions are possible in translation. Thus, defining
terms is an essential first step in operationalizing theory.
Given an agreeable taxonomy, the next problem in validating a theory is
collecting and analyzing data. Data can be either quantitative or qualitative, each with
differing methods of collections. Quantitative data is amenable to statistical analysis
while qualitative data can be coded to numerical forms for factor analysis. Deciding on
the data type and methodology impacts the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn. Thus,
deciding the appropriate data type is essential in operationalizing the theory.
Current research on the construct of intelligence as it relates to personality
paradigms centers in part on the theory of multiple intelligences (MI) as proposed by
Howard Gardner in his book Frames of Mind. Subsequent to Gardner’s original theory,
emotional intelligence (EI) was conceived as a separate intelligence. EI has been a
subject of controversy in the field of personality and cognition. One operationalization of
EI is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Test of Emotional Intelligence (MSCEIT). The
MSCEIT is a pivotal instrument that has been rigorously analyzed with regard to the
construct of EI.
Likewise, the elements of personality have been scrutinized in the current
literature. Personality constructs arise from the theories of Carl Jung and Lev Vygotsky
and also from non-theoretical sources. Several operationalizations of personality have
been devised. The Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness (NEO) model is based on a non-
theoretical lexical approach to personality. The Psycoticism-Extraversion-Neuroticism

(PEN) model is similarly a lexical approach. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is
a personality typing instrument based on the theories of Carl Jung.
The constructs on intelligence and personality intersect in the field of cognitive
styles. Current studies in cognitive styles are concerned with issues perception and
learning. The Cognitive Style Indicator (CoSI) is a recently introduced instrument that
assessing the knowing, planning, or creating predilections of both intelligence and
personality.
With the concepts of intelligence and personality in hand tied together by a
cognitive style, the motivational driver for their employment should be known. The
Hierarchy of Needs as proposed by Abraham Maslow ranges observable human
interaction from the individual to the group. Attempts have been made to operationalize
the hierarchy of needs, but have yet to be adequately formulated.
The integrated knowledge gleaned from combining intelligence measurement,
personality typing, and needs assessment can be beneficial in arranging cooperative
groups of individuals. Understanding the theoretical underpinning of human intelligence,
personality, and motivation can lead to better decisions for grouping people for
efficacious cooperation.
Emotional intelligence.
The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) arose subsequent to the introduction of
the theory of multiple intelligences (MI) by Howard Gardner in 1983. MI must be
distinguished from the unitary factor of intelligence g. g describes the general properties
of intelligence as a global factor. g can be divided into fluid (Gf) and crystallized
intelligence (Gc). Gf is the ability to solve novel problems and Gc is learned knowledge.
MI splinters the unitary g factor of intelligence into seven distinct domains of cognition:
logic-mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and two personal
intelligences. The two personal intelligences are intra-personal intelligence and inter-
personal intelligences (Gardner, 1983; Shearer, 2004). Gardner did not deny the existence
of g, but he doubted its explanatory power, since g relies mostly on linguistic and logic-
mathematical skills (Shearer, 2004). Intelligence is the capacity to think and learn, and
emotions are the signals of motivated behavior (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004a).
Emotional intelligence (EI) is a combination of intelligence and emotion.
As with any new theory, questions about the construct validity of MI arose.
Visser, et al. (2006) considered g to be the substantiating measure of intelligence, noting
that MI represented “special talents” rather and true separable intelligences. MI appeared
to be blends of g with non-cognitive abilities of personality. The determinant of whether
MI actually represents independent intelligences rather than “special talents” as part g
depend on the definition of intelligence as Gardner proposed. Gardner’s criteria for MI
stipulate (among others) measurability by a psychometric. g is a psychometric for the
global view of intelligence. In the case of EI as a newly proposed domain in MI, a
psychometric instrument was developed by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso.
The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is a four-
branched model that tests (a) Branch 1: perceiving emotions, (b) Branch 2: using
emotions to facilitate thought, (c) Branch 3: understanding emotions, and (d) Branch 4:
emotional management. The first two branches (a) and (b) are the Experiential Areas, and
the second two branches (c) and (d) are the Strategic Areas (Mayer et al., 2004a; Roberts
et al., 2006). The MSCEIT operationalizes EI such that more-or-less correct answers can
be attained, correlation with other intelligence measures are observed, and development
with age is observed. Two methods were used to determine the “right” answer to
MSCEIT tests. First, a general consensus method used a majority decision about what
constituted a correct identification of, for instance, anger, joy, or disgust. Second, a panel
of experts in the field of emotion judged what constituted a correct answer. Correlation
of r =.91 was extremely high between the consensus and expert methods (Mayer et al.,
2004a). A four factor solution from factor analysis fit the four-branch model with r = .26
to .60 indicating that the four branches are the likely the best way to parse EI for
assessment (Day & Carroll, 2004; Mayer et al., 2004a). The factorial determination
strengthens the concept that EI can be measured as an ability rather than as a trait, and
that it follows a standard pattern for intelligences (Mayer et al., 2004a). MSCEIT is also
distinct from self-reported measures of EI, such as the Bar-On EQ-I or the Occupational
Personality Questionnaire. MSCEIT correlation with r = .21 and r = -.31 respectively
with these other tests of EI. Mayer, et al. (2004a) remarked that “one’s perceived
intelligence is considerable different from one’s actual intelligence”. Ergo, self-reported
measures of EI do not adequately define EI as a separate intelligence, but rather possibly
indicate more information about personality.
The MSCEIT shows at EI cannot apparently be taught or trained, but research
results are mixed as to whether EI increases with age. (Day and Carroll, 2006; Mayer, et
al., 2004a). Mayer, et al., (2004b) remark that EI cannot be yet be confirmed as stable
latent variable of intelligence beyond the factorial model, and that answers to EI
questions depend on consensus or expert opinion. Mayer, et al. (2004b) also point out that
the incremental validity of the MSCEIT is relatively low, but in a range of that is
acceptably significant.
EI can predict academic performance and social behavior. As EI rises, so does
academic performance. Low EI is associated with problem behaviors such as bullying,
drug abuse, and tobacco use (Mayer, et al., 2004a). Claims that EI correlates with job
performance and that EI accounts for as much as 80% of intelligence are based on
misinterpreted or unpublished studies (Day and Carroll, 2004). Women score
significantly higher on all of the MSCEIT scales that do men. Although Mayer, et al.
(2004a) found that EI increases with age, Day and Carroll (2004) found a negative
correlation between EI and age. The discrepancy in findings probably relates to
differences in the sample population between the two studies. Day and Carroll (2006)
note that increases in IQ occur rapidly from childhood to adolescence and this fact may
account for their results since their sample averaged only 21 year in age. Future research
on EI could study the behavior of low and high EI scorers, and also clarify issues of age
related effects.
A criticism of EI is that it represents a blend of personality types rather than the
separate intelligence as Mayer, et al. (2004a) conceived. The boundary between EI and
personality types is diffuse, resting mostly on the approach of EI as an ability rather than
as a trait. Ability-based measures such as MSCEIT align EI more with intelligence
measures. Self-reported measures of EI align more with trait-based personality measures
(Day and Carroll, 2004). Noteworthy is that MSCEIT correlated positively with some of
the scales of the NEO-PI, an important measure of personality to be discussed below in
this paper.
EI can be subsumed under the theory of MI. EI meets the definition of a separate
intelligence according to Gardner’s criteria, although Gardner considered EI to be
expressions of the two personal intelligences within MI. EI has a modest level of
predictive value, but it also appears to overlap with personality traits. The constructs of
intelligence and personality reside in the same psychological space of the human brain, so
EI is mostly likely a joint expression of the two constructs. Piaget’s stages of intelligence
development can account for increases of EI with age, provided that EI is viewed as a
separable intelligence. Conceptualization of emotions can be equated with Piagetian
schemas which theoretically supports the perception branch of MSCEIT. Vygotsky’s idea
that intelligence develops from socialization lends theoretical backing the facilitation
branch of MSCEIT: since emotions are socially involved, they assist in the development
of intelligence, EI specifically. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs states that unmet needs
motive behavior (Maslow, 1954), and Mayer, et al. (2004a) thought that emotions are
reflective symbols of behavior. This logic concludes that Maslow’s theory of motivation
drives expression of EI. Therefore, EI is substantiated by the theories of Gardner, Piaget,
Vygotsky, and Maslow. The MCSEIT instrument, when used as an ability-based measure
expresses EI with convergent and divergent validity and faithfully operationalizes EI.
Trait-based measures of EI may confuse the domains of intelligence and personality. The
problem lies in the taxonomy of the field as evident by the various viewpoints taken on
EI between Mayer, et al. (2004a), Day 2006),Visser (2006), and Roberts (2006).
Additionally, the usefulness of measurements of EI depends on the issue of intelligence
or personality, or both.
Personality.
Carl Jung’s psychological types divide individual differences along empirically
observed lines of introversion and extraversion. The two attitude types are further subset
into thinking, feeling, intuitive, and sensing function types. These types are influenced
further by the dueling nature of the conscious and unconscious mind compounded with
the archetypes of primordial imagery and a collective unconscious (Jung, 1950).
Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy or needs is a pyramidal model of needs in ascending order
of prepotency from the basic physiological needs up to the level of self-actualization
(Maslow, 1954). These two psychological theories fuse with multiple intelligences to
spawn a multifarious palette of human response that is unique to each individual, i.e., a
personality.
Obviously, personality is a synergism of intelligence and psychological types. But
what are the dimensions of personality if personality exists only as a medley of these
theories? How can morality, creativity, and wisdom be accounted for? People in all
cultures have evolved descriptors of the dimensions of personality via language. The
hypothesis of the lexical approach to understanding personality is that important trait
differences between individuals have been encoded in language. Decoding these traits
from language generates a taxonomy of personality. Two researchers, Tupes and Christal
in 1961 used this lexical approach to personality to discover five trait factors that seem to
comprehensively contain the essence of personality (McRae and John, 1992). The five
factors constitute the Five Factor Model of Personality (FFM), also known as the Big
Five. The factors are Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C),
Neuroticism (N), and Openness (O). A handy way to recall the five factors is by the
acronym OCEAN (or CANOE). The acronym letters will be used for brevity in the
ensuing discussion of the FFM.
If personality traits are universal, then the same five factors should be extracted
from any language. Indeed, this is the case with a near one-to-one correspondence of the
five factors in English and in German. Five factors were also found in Chinese, but did
not exactly match the English five factors. Adjectives were used in the extractions, so
extracting nouns or verbs may be an interesting future study to further confirm the FFM.
The FFM is not based on personality theory. Personality theorist, including Jung
and Eysenck, sought broad themes such as neuroticism and to explain mostly negative
psychological characteristics. Mapping the FFM onto instruments that test theories
showed that many of the five factors are already embedded in theory. The FFM added
significant new descriptors of personality. The five factors are not comprehensive, and
other factors have been suggested. Culture, values, and gender might be candidates for
new factors, but these can probably be explained as combinations of the original five
traits. Overlap between the global intelligence factor g and the Openness (O) factor in
FFM have been noted. The FFM represents an empirically observed generalization of the
common dimensions of personality (McRae and John, 1992).
The FFM is part of trait theory. Traits are consistent, enduring qualities of
individuals. Traits have social significance and are detectable by lay people in daily
experience. The FFM presents a larger framework in which theories of personality may
be examined: cognitive, social, and psychometrics concepts can be explored within the
FFM. The FFM may be an adaptive system within cultural evolution whereby individual
differences create viable niches that enhance survival. Some evidence supports the
heritability of traits. Longitudinal studies indicate stability of traits from childhood to
adulthood, but some changes do occur with age. The dynamic of interpersonal behavior
may also be explained in part by the FFM traits as a result of the ego governing
expression of the five traits (McRae and John, 1992).
The FFM has been operationalized in the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI). NEO-PI breaks down each of the five factors of the
FFM into six facets. N facets include anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness,
impulsivity, and vulnerability. E facts include warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness,
activity, excitement seeking, and positive emotions. O facets include fantasy, aesthetics,
feelings, actions, ideas, and values. A facets include trust, straight-forwardness, altruism,
compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness. C facets include competence, order,
dutifulness, achievement, self-discipline, and deliberation (Furnham, et al., 2007).
Another conceptualization of personality similar to the FFM is the Psychoticism-
Extravert-Neuroticism (PEN) model by H.J. Eysenck. PEN is a three factor model
operationalized in the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP). PEN combines the FFM O and
A traits as P, but is otherwise quite similar to the FFM (Costa and McRae, 1995).
Jungian psychology has been operationalized in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI). MBTI is a self-reported questionnaire that yields 16 distinct personality types.
Four scales, each with two traits comprise the MBTI: Extraversion-Introversion (EI),
Sensing-Intuition (SN), Thinking-Feeling (TF), and Judgment-Perception (JP). MBTI
sharply dichotomizes the types rather that indicating a continuum as Jung intended. Also,
the JP scale is an attempt to define the Jungian idea of dominant versus auxiliary
functions. MBTI has drawn some criticism for perhaps not faithfully reflecting Jungian
psychology (McRae and Costa, 1989).
The FFM has been tested against the personality model of the NEO-PI, EPP,
MBTI, and also against measures intelligence including Gf and Gc.. Each of these
instruments purports to describe personality by its unique grouping of facets and types.
Confusion reigns from the muddling of terms, facets and typing across these instruments.
Important distinctions at some level of understanding can be achieved from any one of
these instruments. Instead of haphazard selection of variables and the potential loss of
valuable information about personality, a cooperative approach to research and
coordination of findings might be more beneficial (McRae and Costa, 1989). Fortunately,
the FFM is a common thread across the field of personality assessment and can be used
as a basis for comparison of these several personality models.
Correlation studies of these instruments suffice to coordinate the various
personality instruments and the FFM. Settling on the number of personality factors is a
prime concern. The lexical FFM operationalized by NEO-PI is based on five factors, but
the PEN model uses only three. Eysenck’s PEN model maps to the NEO on most of the
superfactors: N to N, E to E, but NEO-PI O did not appear in the PEN system. Eysenck
did consider O to be personality factor (Costa and McRae, 1995). Also, NEO-PI C related
to low values of the PEN E. The pertinent task to understanding whether three or five
factors best describes personality is to test the construct validity of both models.
Correlation studies revealed the convergent and divergent validity of the two models
(Costa and McRae, 1995). Both a three factor and a five factor solution resulted from the
data. However, the five factor solution better resolved the facets under A and C. The
study answered the question about how PEN P is related to NEO-PI A and C. A and C
relate to following social norms as does the PEN P. O is completely absent from the PEN
model. Eysenck believed O to be cognitive ability and not a personality trait, or at least
an inverse pole of P (Costa and McRae, 1995). The NEO-PI five factor solution provides
a better resolution of the FFM than does the three factor solution PEN, so the NEO-PI
would be the preferred instrument of the two.
The FFM has been criticized as “folk concepts” which do not explain the concepts
to which its terms apply (McRae and John, 1992). If personality is to be a valid arena of
scientific study, then it must have theoretical basis. The MBTI is personality type
indicator based on the theories of Carl Jung. The MBTI as a representation of theory was
tested against the NEO-PI as a representation of the “folk concept” FFM in a 1989 study
to by McRae and Costa. Analysis of MBTI showed that the 16 types are not qualitatively
distinct dichotomies. Jung’s theory suggests that personality types form a continuum.
Further, the MBTI did not adequately characterize the Jungian dominant function from
the auxiliary function. Apparently, MBTI merely summarizes additive effects of
personality with no attempt to explain or predict any interrelation of them. McRae and
Costa (1989) concluded that either the Jungian theory is incorrect or that the MBTI does
not sufficiently operationalize it. Because of these concerns on the construct validity of
the MBTI as an operationalization of Jungian theory, using the MBTI to impute theory to
the FFM is questionable. The MBTI still has value if it is viewed in terms of the FFM
since each of the four MBTI indices converged on the FFM factors (McRae and John,
1989). For instance, the MBTI SN index matches the FFM O factor. It is possible to map
each of the 16 MBTI types to a set of the FFM factors. MBTI ENTJ type would be the
same as the FFM E, A and C. The FFM has some relationship to Jungian theory, albeit
through a distorted lens of the MBTI.
Francis, Craig, and Robbins (2007) note that even thought MBTI is a type sorting
instrument that the sorting mechanism is by eight continuous scales. Internal validity
studies cited by Francis (2007) indicate that the MBTI scales for type sorting can be
related to personality traits. The conceptual link between the MBTI continuous scales
permits an analysis of the discrete type-sorting nature of MBTI to be translated in a
dynamic way to the personality trait measures. Francis, et al. (2007) was successful in
mapping the MBTI to the PEN with a suggestion that the 16PF (another personality
typing instrument) and NEO-PI be similarly analyzed. MEIS, an early version of the
MSCEIT, was tested against the 16PF (Caruso, Mayer, and Salovey, 2002) for an
additional linkage of EI to MBTI. These additional studies could clarify mapping of
MBTI to FFM and to EI, but it would still not improve the operationalization of Jungian
theory by the MBTI.
The FFM stands out as a ubiquitous personality model that is faithfully
operationalized by the NEO-PI. The PEN and MBTI map onto the FFM with some
degree of confidence as discussed above. Overlap between emotional intelligence (EI)
and personality has also been previously discussed. The MSCEIT as a measure of EI was
compared to NEO-PI as a measure of the FFM by Mayer, Salovey and Costa in 2004. The
Mayer study intended to show that EI is an intelligence separable from personality, but
the result shed some light on how intelligence plays on personality. MSCEIT and NEO-PI
correlated r = .38 over all. EI-perceiving correlated with FFM-agreeableness; EI-using
correlated with FFM-openness, FFM-agreeableness, and FFM-conscientiousness; EI-

understanding correlated with FFM-openness; and EI-managing correlated with FFM-
openness and FFM-agreeableness. The correlations among the four branches of the
MCSEIT and the NEO-PI ranged from r = .24 to r =.10. Generally, people high in EI are
agreeable, open, and conscientious in the FFM terms (Mayer, et al., 2004a).
Intelligence constructs of Piaget and Vygotsky intermingle with the psychology
constructs of Jung and Maslow to produce the individuality of people in terms of
perception and expression. The various assessment instruments attest to a commingling
of the theories. MSCEIT and g interact. MSCEIT and NEO-PI interact. MBTI and PEN
are submerged in the FFM. So what is the interfacing construct between intelligence and
psychology?
Cognitive style.
Cognitive style is at the crossroads between intelligence and personality. The
defining word in this concept is style, referring to a habitual pattern of behavior.
Cognitive style refers to the way people think, learn, resolve problems, perceive stimuli,
and how this information guides behavior (Cools and Van den Broeck, 2007).
Cognitive style has been modeled on a bipolar broad to narrow construct such as
analytic-intuitive and logical-nonlogical. This model’s partitioning ascribes the analytic
pole to the right brain hemisphere, and the intuitive pole to the left brain hemisphere
(Allinson and Hayes, 1996). This model is quite similar in to the extravert-introvert or
conscious-unconscious model of Jungian psychology. Cools and Van Den Broeck (2007)
describe the analytic pole of the model as “analytical, deductive, rigorous, constrained,
convergent, formal, and critical”. They describe the intuitive pole as “synthetic,
inductive, expansive, unconstrained, divergent, informal, and diffuse”. Many of these

terms are direct analogs of terms used in the FFM scales. The MBTI SN and JP types also
closely mirror the bipolar cognitive styles model.
Cools and Van den Broeck (2007) proposed a three dimensional model of
cognitive styles that better aligns current research with their experience in the field.
Knowing Style includes the desire to have facts, the use of logic, objectivity, rationality,
and methodology. The Planning Style includes a preference for structure, conformity,
organization, and routine, The Creative Style seeks ideas, novelty, subjectivity, and
creativity. The Cognitive Style Indictor (CoSI) operationalized this model. CoSI was
tested for construct validity by factor analysis against the MBTI and the SIMP (another
instrument measuring the FFM). CoSI was also analyzed against academic performance
of a sample of business school graduates.
Analysis by Cools and Van den Broeck (2007) of the CoSI against the MBTI
clearly showed that the MBTI SN and JP scales are most relevant to understanding CoSI.
The Knowing Style was significantly matched to the MBTI-thinking type. The Planning
Style was positively matched to the MBTI-sensing type. The Creative Style was matched
to the MBTI-intuitive type. CoSi also showed positive correlation with the FFM. The
Knowing style correlated positively with the Agreeableness type. Creative Style aligned
with the Openness type. The Planning style correlated positively to the Conscientiousness
type. CoSI did not correlate well with academic performance. Overall, the Knowing and
Planning styles aligned mostly with the analytic pole of the bipolar model, and the
Creative style aligned with the intuitive pole of the bipolar model. Although Cools and
Van den Broeck (2007) found significant correlation between the Knowing and Planning
styles (r = .38, p = .01), they contend that enough difference between the two can be
found in comparison among the other measures of MBTI and SIMP to substantiate a
division of the analytic pole into the two parts Knowing and Planning. Cools and Van den
Broeck (2007) also confirmed by both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis that
their three factor model has divergent and convergent validity. By both inductive and
deductive methods, they sustained the three branch model of cognitive styles in their
CoSI instrument. Cools and Van den Broeck (2007) suggest further research on whether
or not CoSI has predictive capability.
Cognitive style determination can be useful in assessing organizational fit and in
making hiring decisions where change, adaptation, and flexibility in thinking styles may
be important considerations. People prefer making decisions based on their cognitive
styles. A link between cognitive style and managerial behavior has been established.
Managers work through others to achieve organizational goals. Managers can adopt a
task-orientation or a people-orientation with regard to decision making. The Knowing
style when applied to task-oriented behavior relies on an analytical approach and logical
arguments. Knowing style applied to people-oriented behavior relies on feedback, but
lacks the element of praise and empathy. Likewise, the Planning style prefers an
analytical approach, but with less emphasis on facts and more emphasis on structure. The
Creating style relies on persuasion and convincing and perhaps emotional involvement in
people-oriented tasks, and it relies on intuition and flexibility in task-oriented situations.
The Knowing and Planning style are more aligned with task-orientation, and the
Creativity style is more aligned with people-orientation of tasks (Cools and Van den
Broeck, 2008).
A supervisor who knows his cognitive style and the cognitive style of his
subordinate may be able to positively exploit these differences in terms of selective
communication and task assignment. Cools and Van den Broeck (2008) remark that no
style is better than another and that style seems to be independent of managerial
competence. Styles certainly do influence managerial decision making, depending on
task-oriented or people-oriented behavior.
Another way to dissect cognitive behavior other than by styles is by high or low
(a) need for structure and (b) need for cognition. This scheme results in four categories of
cognition: high/low structure x high/low cognition. Structured people are rigid,
unambiguous, and have a black-or-white view of the world. People with the need for
cognition can tolerate more ambiguity but require more evaluation. Structure and
cognition are significantly related to general negative affect. Negative affect is
characterized by low self-efficacy resulting in anxiety, indecisiveness, self-consciousness,
and neuroticism. Higher need for cognition correlates to lower negative affect. Higher
need to structure correlates to higher negative affect (Cavazos and Campbell, 2008).
The Cools and Van den Broeck model of cognitive style is more useful for
organizational and work-related tasks. The Cavazos model is more useful in a clinical
setting.
The Intelligence-Personality Complex.
Validly operationalized theories of intelligence, personality, cognition, and
motivation provide measurements for comparing and contrasting individuals. The NEO-
PI, MBTI, CoSI, and MSCEIT clearly define the personality of singular individuals. For
instance, an introvert can be distinguished from an extravert. Prediction of the nature of a

person with high EI can be made in comparison to a person on low EI. Three cognitive
styles can brand individuals. Of greater interest is using these intrapersonal measures to
describe possible interpersonal interaction outcomes.
Before interpersonal interaction can be addressed, the combination of the
intrapersonal measures must be examined. NEO-PI and MBTI measure personality traits,
and MSCEIT measures emotional intelligence. Gf can be measured with the Graduate
Management Assessment (GMA) and Gc can be measured with the Watson-Glaser
Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA). Cognitive style is measured by the CoSI. The
theories of intelligence and personality overlap within these instruments, and much can
be gleaned about a person from independent assessment of either the intelligence tests or
the personality tests.
However, people are holistic in nature, so an atomistic approach of considering
intelligence entirely apart from personality is not realistic. The combined effect of
intelligence with personality is the actual whole psychological entity that interacts across
individuals. Synergy of intelligence and personality are represented by the overlap in the
testing instruments. This synergy is the Intelligence-Personality Complex. Following are
a few examples of the overlap. NEO-PI O5 (openness to ideas) is positively correlated
with crystallized (Gc) intelligence and fluid intelligence Gf. NEO-PI C2 (conscientious
dutifulness) negatively correlate to Gc and Gf . MBTI introverted types are more likely to
have higher and Gf. MBTI feeling and thinking types were negatively correlated with Gc
(Furnham, et al., 2007). MBTI judging is strongly correlated to the CoSI knowing style
(Cools and Van den Broeck, 2007). The MSCEIT understanding branch and managing
branch both correlated strongly with verbal IQ measures (Mayer, et al., 2004a).
Taxonomy of all of these testing instruments describes the various traits, types,
and styles. Introvert, extravert, thinking, feeling, sensing, intuiting, judging, perceiving,
knowing, planning, creating, et cetera, are all qualitatively descriptive or quantifiably
measurable, but each term is profoundly static. Even knowing the level of correlation
between these test elements is static. Motivation is the sine qua non of dynamic human
behavior. Although Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has not been operationalized as validly
as intelligence and personality, the needs hierarchy is nonetheless rational. Motivation
places the static elements of intelligence tests and personality tests into dynamic motion.
More correctly, the unmet needs motivate behavior, so assessing intelligence and
personality in light of unmet needs can explain dynamic behavior.
Emotional information is an evolved system of communication that is different
from language. Emotional information signals understanding and appraisal of intent
between people. Also, certain emotional information is enculturated and imputes non-
verbal communication (Mayer, et al., 2004a). The basic physiological needs for food,
water, and sex are driven by the requirement of biological homeostasis. Emotional
intelligence (EI) probably evolved as a psychological mechanism to contend with threats
to these basic needs. Chances for survival are enhanced by ameliorating threats and
attacks, as well as for providing information to pursue mating opportunities.
Understanding, assessing, using, and managing emotions directly relates to the
motivational driver of the basic psychological needs. EI also assists in meeting the safety
needs in much the same way as for the psychological needs. The four branch model of the
MSCEIT is a perfect set of features for describing the dynamic pursuit of satisfaction of
the basic needs. The MSCEIT is no longer a static measurement when considered in light
of basic needs motivation.
Personality types reflect the various ways by which people express their
relationship to each other. The belongingness needs require interaction between people in
order to be satisfied. Cann (2004) examined four common relationships of “friend”,
“romantic partner”, “your boss, and “your employee” to see which personal qualities are
most important in a relationship. Not surprising was the finding the romantic partners
valued intimacy, dependability, and kindness. Friends valued dependability and kindness,
but not necessarily achievement. Achievement was valued in both the “your employee”
and “your boss” relationships. These four relationships represent the greater part of a
person’s social network, and “help define or social reality and our sense of self” (Cann,
2004). The values that Cann (2004) tested are akin to the NEO-PI factors of personality.
These values all relate to some level of belongingness. The need for belongingness is the
motivation that drives these values across different relationships. Unclear form Cann’s
study is whether one particular personality type prefers another personality type.
Considering the Jungian idea of a syzygy of the conscious and the unconscious yielding
introversion-extraversion, thinking-intuiting, and sensing-feeling, it would be interesting
for future research to see whether opposite personality types attract based on needs
fulfillment as characterized by Cann’s value set. Cann’s values apply to the attainment of
esteem as well as belongingness. The esteem needs of Maslow’s hierarchy also require
interpersonal interaction. The additional value to be implied in esteem is a feeling of
positive self-worth derived from the feedback from the social network. Values, possibly
described in the Jungian based personality types, are dynamically integrated in these
important relationship types.
Presumably, all of the lower needs are fulfilled to some extent before a person can
begin to fulfill the need for self actualization (Maslow, 1954). Self-actualization (SA) is
the apex of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Self-actualized people have a strong sense of
self and of others. Self-actualization is similar to the Jungian concept of individuation.
Individuation is the linkage between the conscious and the unconscious (Schott, 1992).
Greene and Burke (2007) mentioned that Maslow himself suggested an even higher level
need beyond SA called selfless-actualization. This level goes beyond the self to include
others and also enjoin creativity. Selfless-actualization overlaps with the NEO-openness
facet. Longitudinal studies do not show that SA is related to aging. Generally though, the
lower needs seem to be sought by younger people, and the higher needs seem to be
sought by older people, so maturity is a factor in needs fulfillment (Reiss and
Haverkamp, 2005). Harvarth (2008) found a case where an elderly woman disregarded
the lower need for safety and preferred the higher need of esteem, but this subject
suffered dementia. The case can be considered an exception to Maslow’s linearity of
lower needs before higher needs fulfillment. EI increases with age (Day and Carroll,
2004; Mayer, et al., 2004a). This implies that needs fulfillment and increased EI do not
necessarily interact and that self-actualization cannot be assumed by the presence of high
EI. Apparently, the Intelligence-Personality Complex does not yield totally predicable
results. Intelligence and personality may work at cross-purposes, even at the expense of
achieving self-actualization.
Much of personality expression can be explained by Jung’s and Maslow’s
theories, but social relations also impact the Intelligence-Personality Complex. The
teacher-student relationship is a setting for the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
proposed by Lev Vygotsky (cf. Breadth section of this paper). Academic success has been
shown to be promoted by a cooperative learning environment. Eames and Stewart (2008)
noted that when teachers foster a positive social relationship with students that learning
improved. Pertinent factors of smaller class sizes, encouragement of questioning, and
teacher’s knowing students names created the better learning environment. Clearly, the
Vygotsky ZPD is made possible by satisfaction of the Maslow needs for safety,
belongingness, and esteem between the teacher and the student in this positive social
setting. The ZPD is effective when the Intelligence-Personality Complex is balanced.
Skewing of either the part of the complex would weaken the ZPD.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) are beneficial behaviors among
coworkers that create a positive work environment. People high in EI can more readily
identify and respond to emotional stimuli resulting in empathy that should drive better
OCB. Smoother and more productive team effort results from positive OCB (Day and
Carroll, 2004). Surprisingly, Day and Carroll could not verify that EI as measured by
MSCEIT actually related to positive OCB. They suggested that EI as a trait-based
measure is more related to OCB than to EI as an ability-based measure. Their conclusion
is correct, since MSCEIT was designed to measure EI as an ability (Mayer, et al. 2004a).
Job performance in groups must therefore be influenced more by personality factors than
by EI as an ability. The Intelligence-Personality Complex may play in favor of
personality in the work environment.

In summary, the Intelligence-Personality Complex is the motivated synergy of
MI, EI, personality, and cognition. Theories Piaget, Jung, Vygotsky, Gardner, and Maslow
all bear on this complex. Overlap in these theories is evident in the various measuring
instruments. Interpersonal interaction creates a dynamic societal field where the complex
comes alive. Friends, bosses, romantic partners, and coworkers engender various levels
of observable human interaction via transmittal of their unique Intelligence-Personality
Complex.
Interpreting the individual.
The paradigm of observable human interaction contends that human sentience
engenders cooperation among people, but that the nature of the cooperation may not
necessarily be maximally or mutually beneficial (cf. Breadth section of this paper).
Utilizing the intrapersonal measures to explore the range of possible interpersonal
dynamics may mitigate any ill effects of incompatibility. Best-fit matching of people for
specific instances of cooperation may be found in the coordination of the various
measurement instruments by arraying their overlapping items by highest levels of
correlation. This method will operationalize the Intelligence-Personality Complex for
engaging people to particular tasks.
In order to derive a comprehensive and meaningful interpretation of the
individual, the overlaps of the various instruments must generate concrete extractable
data. Such data will be primary qualitative in describing the individual, and secondarily
quantitative to describe strengths and degrees of correlation. This data assessment
constitutes the metrics for the Intelligence-Personality Complex as a global measure of
the individual. To avoid the atomistic attitude of evaluating an individual in isolation, the
individual must be juxtaposed to a particular task or situation of interpersonal
cooperation. Temperament, styles, preferences, strengths, and weakness as assessed in the
Intelligence-Personality Complex can be subjectively weighted to apply most agreeably
to any particular task or to a situation of interpersonal cooperation. Conversely, a task
may be described in terms of its requirements for particular Intelligence-Personality
Complex characteristics. Task characterization in terms of the Intelligence-Personality
Complex is a totally subjective endeavor. Tasks can be any particular engagement of one
or more people for some desired outcome. For instance, the task may be to paint an oil
portrait on canvas of the Queen of England. What would be the nature of the best person
to accomplish such a task in terms of MI, EI, Personality, and Cognitive Style? How
could the task itself be characterized in terms of its requirements of the Intelligence-
Personality Complex?
The assignment of a particular individual based on his (her) Intelligence-
Personality Complex assessment to a task with a similar Intelligence-Personality
Complex requirement lacks any basis of cause and effect. A possible future study could
examine the cause and effect linkage of task completion in light of personnel assignments
based on Intelligence-Personality Complex characterization. Matching the right person to
the right task, or vice versa, may avoid diminished results. The Intelligence-Personality
Complex must have a spine of coordination between tasks and people. The Maslow
hierarchy of needs transects theories of intelligence, personality, and cognition by
providing the dynamic motive for action. Unfortunately, no model of the hierarchy of
needs has been validated, and such a model would be the ideal vehicle to lace together
the overlap of the MSCEIT, NEO-PI, MBTI, and the CoSI. Ivashchenko and Novikov
(2006) developed a mathematical model of the hierarchy of needs with the idea to
determine quantity of resources necessary to fulfill the Maslow needs. This model has a
serious limitation of assuming that needs fulfillment is continuous and linear. Also, their
model requires that the needs be filled in their prepotent order. As discussed by Day
(2004), Harvarth (2008), and Maslow (1954), needs are not fulfilled linearly nor are they
always met in the prepotent order. The Ivashchenko mathematical model is not useful in
operationalizing the Intelligence-Personality Complex.
A subjective approach is needed to coordinate people with tasks based on
commonality of Intelligence-Personality Complex, but the subjectivity is ameliorated by
the overlapping theoretical principles of intelligence and personality. Following Cools
and Van den Broeck (2008) in the dichotomy of task-orientation versus people-
orientation, a method of operationalizing the Intelligence-Personality Complex can be
established with the same principle of dichotomy. Cools and Van den Broeck (2008)
applied their cognitive dichotomy to individuals. The same dichotomy can be applied to
forms of cooperation. People cannot be constructed with forethought to produce a
particular Intelligence-Personality Complex. People are prima facie who they are.
However, a cooperative event can be constructed with forethought as to its requirement
for a particular Intelligence-Personality Complex assessment. This foreknowledge of the
highly efficacious characteristics of the Intelligence-Personality Complex can be imputed
to the task as though it were a person. The coordination of matching the right person to
the task is then made much simpler by matching via the commonality of the Intelligence-
Personality Complex. The results should be assured with higher confidence of success.
Equation of cooperation.
Mature people are the product of their culture and environment, and little can be
done to alter their basic facets of intelligence or personality. The result is that the societal
field is stable and measurable. People with a particular Intelligence-Personality Complex
assessment can be identified with forethought. Given that the overlapping facets across
the theories of intelligence and personality are finite, the overwhelming diversity of
people is therefore restricted to a manageable set of parameters. The Intelligence-
Personality Complex assessment of people is then tantamount to an independent variable.
Tasks, unlike people, are unbounded in their variation. But since tasks can be
characterized with forethought using the same terms of the Intelligence-Personality
Complex, the task can act as a dependent variable in an equation of cooperation. People
are the independent variable and the tasks are the dependent variable. Working the
equation in reverse, i.e., define a task first in terms of the Intelligence-Personality
Complex requirements, and then the nature of the people required for its successful
completion can be determined. The equation of cooperation is not perfect equality, since
only the overlapping facets of the intelligence and personality measures can be
correlated. Many other facets of these theories are independent of one another, but may
act as constants in the equation of cooperation. As a basic example of the equation of
cooperation: imaging a ask that has a rigid structure in terms of procedures in written
language and that requires attention to detail can easily be seen to reflect the need for
person with a knowing cognitive style, a strong in linguistic skill, and a personality of
with high NEO-PI conscientiousness.

“Birds of a feather flock together”. The old adage carries more theoretical weight
than its triteness may disguise. Certain tasks, especially when batched into jobs and
careers seem to “attract” very similar types of people. Accountants are mostly introverted,
knowing, planning, and conscientious with varying degrees of the other Intelligence-
Personality Complex facets. Policeman, teachers, actors, sculptors, politicians, and
practically any and all professional, craftsmen, or tradesmen can be described in terms of
the Intelligence-Personality Complex. Indeed, every job category has its own unique
Intelligence-Personality Complex description. In narrower terms within these job
categories, more discrete tasks must be accomplished. Daily routines, special projects,
and the like all amount to doing a job at some level of cooperation. It is in the
construction and design of these discrete tasks that the most efficient, beneficial and
productive level of cooperation can be attained by forethought of the Intelligence-
Personality Complex requirements.
“Find the right man for the job” is another old adage that belies its theoretical
foundation. But profoundly, the Intelligence-Personality Complex of both the job and the
man must be completely understood before this matching can be accomplished rationally
and with a firm theoretical backing. The equation of cooperation contends that “Create
the right job for the man” is just as possible.
Summary of Depth Component
The Depth component surveys the current scholarly research on the theories of
intelligence, personality and cognitive style. The theoretical constructs have been
operationalized in instruments of psychometric measurements including the MSCEIT to
test emotional intelligence, the NEO-PI to test personality, the MBTI to type personality,
the CoSI to determine cognitive styles. Current research has confirmed construct,
convergent, and divergent validity for these instruments. Correlation studies and factor
analysis have found overlaps between these separate instruments. It is within these
overlaps of facets that the theories of intelligence and personality coalesce to the
Intelligence-Personality Complex. The individual can be interpreted in terms of his (her)
unique expression of Intelligence-Personality Complex, but conversely so can tasks and
opportunities for cooperation. The equation of cooperation of tasks with people via the
Intelligence-Personality Complex provides a rational way based on theory to coordinate
the selection of people for a task or by constructing the task with forethought to utilize
particular people. Matching people to tasks or to opportunities for cooperation removes
the rift of incompatibility, and aligns the highest potential of people. The desired result is
to increase the social utility of human potential in the most agreeable and efficacious
fashion.
The Application section will array the overlaps of the various intelligence and
personality instruments. Taking into consideration the underlying theory, the equation of
cooperation will be applied to task development for the purpose of personnel assignment
utilizing the Intelligence-Personality Complex.

APPLICATION
SBSF 8230: PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Applying the theories of intelligence, personality, and cognition to practical
events can be accomplished by coordinating the various testing instruments. As discussed
in the preceding Depth section, the Intelligence-Personality Complex assessment of
people as well as events can be aligned in an equation of cooperation. Correlated items
of the MSCEIT, NEO-PI, CoSI and MBTI provide a matrix of decision factors bearing on
the equation of cooperation. The premise of the equation of cooperation is that cognitive
styles affect decision making and that cognitive styles relate to personalities (Cools and
Van den Broeck, 2007, 2008). The matrix decision factors are completely theory-based
with proven construct, convergent, and divergent validity. The matrix will be constructed
and instructions will be given for its use in solving the best-fit of supervisors and
subordinates for various tasks. Remembering also that tasks also can be assessed in terms
of the Intelligence-Personality Complex, a task between the supervisor and the
subordinate can be interposed.
The Matrix of Correlations
Table 1 is the matrix of correlations between the MSCEIT for emotional
intelligence, the NEO-PI for personality traits, the MBTI for personality types, the CoSI
for cognitive styles, and two measures of intelligence, Gf and Gc. The overlap between
the instruments is clearly seen in the matrix. By following facets and trait intersections,
the highest or lowest correlation factor can be found. For instance, Cognitive Planning
Style = .54 is associated with Myers-Briggs Judging Type. The Myers-Brigg Judging
Type = .45 is in turn related to the Five Factor Model Conscientiousness facet. Thus, the
CoSI can be related to the NEO-PI indirectly, but validly. The highest or lowest
correlation can be traced across all of the overlapping psychometrics in a similar fashion.
The significance of following the chain of correlations is obvious: any particular desired
trait or style of personality can be readily linked to a facet of intelligence or to a cognitive
style.
Table 1
Matrix of Correlated Facets, Styles and Types for Intelligence and Personality Metrics
Emotional Intelligence Five Factor Model a Cognitive Style b
a
O C E A N Knowin Planning Creative
g
B1 Perceiving 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.17 -0.08
B2 Facilitating 0.11 0.1 0.06 0.1 -0.07
B3 Understanding 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.08 0
B4 Managing 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.24 -0.07
Myers-Briggs c
E Extravert 0.28 0.12 0.71 0 -0.24 -0.22 -0.05 0.2
I Introvert - -0.13 -0.72 0.01 0.25 0.16 0.11 -0.22
0.28
S Sensing - 0.1 -0.25 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.36 -0.43
0.62
N Intuitive 0.58 -0.12 0.2 -0.01 -0.11 -0.04 -0.23 0.32
T Thinking - 0.24 0.02 -0.4 -0.2 0.15 0.06 -0.11
0.16
F Feeling 0.15 -0.26 -0.02 0.29 0.23 -0.1 -0.04 0.08
J Judging - 0.45 -0.14 0.06 0 0.19 0.54 -0.38
0.26
P Perceiving 0.26 -0.46 0.14 0.07 0.01 -0.15 -0.55 0.36
General Intelligence d
Gf Fluid 0.09 -0.12 0 -0.01 0
Gc Crystallized 0.12 -0.07 0.01 -0.01 -0.07
a
Mayer, et al., 2004a, Cools and Van Den Broeck, 2007, c,d Furnham, et al., 2007
b
Applying the matrix of correlated factors.

The first step in applying the matrix is to analyze the task to be accomplished. The
task can be any particular event requiring either one or more people. The equation of
cooperation logically permits the description of tasks in terms of the Intelligence-
Personality Complex (cf. Depth section discussion). One caveat is that terms from the
theories involved must be used to characterize the task so as to not pollute the process
with non-theoretical meanings. People or tasks can easily be characterized in terms of the
Cognitive Styles Index (CoSI) given in Table 2. Describe the task using the terms of
cognitive styles, and then select the cognitive style that best fits. Granted, the assessment
of the task will be totally subjective and purely a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, any
task should easily fall under one of the three cognitive styles.
Table 2
Cognitive Styles Descriptive Terms a

Knowing Planning Creating
Facts, Details, Logical, Sequential, Structured, Possibilities, Meanings,
Reflective, Objective, Conventional, Conformity, Ideas, Impulsive, Flexible,
Impersonal, Rational, Planned, Organized, Open-Ended, Novelty,
Precision, Methodical Systematic, Routine Subjective, Inventive

a
Cools and Van den Broeck, 2007
The second step in applying the matrix is the trace the highest correlations
through the matrix to determine the best-fit personality and emotional intelligence type.
The matrix correctly aligns the cognitive style of a task with the highest correlated
personality type and emotional intelligence type. The following example will use the
matrix to characterize a task, select the best-fit person, and explain the theoretical
principles involved.
An example of best-fit matching.

Suppose that the Queen of England would like to have her portrait painted. The
first step is to thoroughly describe the task in terms of the cognitive styles. Oil painting is
a creative endeavor that can imply meaning, or perhaps engage novelty. Clearly then, the
Creating Style appears to be best fit. The Knowing Style can be rejected, since oil
painting does not depend of facts. The Planning Style might be considered, since oil
painting is a sequential and structured process. The final selection of cognitive style is
subjective, and a balance of considerations for all three of the cognitive styles should be
made. The one cognitive style that best fits the task should be selected. The selection
process is somewhat teleological and tautological since the person who evaluates the task
is influenced by his (her) own Intelligence-Personality Complex.
As seen in Table 1, Creating Style r = .32 aligns with MBTI Intuitive trait.
Creating Style r = .36 aligns with the MBTI Perceiving trait. Following the matrix to the
left along these two rows, correlations to the Five Factor Model stand out clearly. MBTI
Intuitive r = .58 and r = .20 for NEO-PI Openness and NEO-PI Extraversion respectively.
MBTI Perceiving r = .26, r = .14, and r = .07 for NEO-PI Openness, NEO-PI
Extraversion, and NEO-PI Agreeableness respectively. Additionally, the Emotional
Intelligence Branch 4: Managing is positively correlated with the selected NEO-PI traits.
Therefore, the best-fit person for this task would have a creative cognitive style, be
intuitive, open, and agreeable with a strong ability to manage emotions. One could
imagine such a painter: creative by nature so as to pose his subject for best effect;
agreeable to listen and react to the Queen, but intuiting the best outcome for the art; open
and engaging to the Queen to evoke her best countenance; managing his emotions so as
to mind his manners in the Queens presence.

Justifying the matrix decision depends on the taxonomy of the various
psychometric instruments. As discussed in the Depth section, taxonomy differences
create the overlap, but also the controversy, across these instruments. The caveat to use
the terms defined in the various instruments is important so as to preserve the construct
validity of the matrix. However, as demonstrated in this example, meanings can be
affected by the evaluator. Reasonableness of assessment depends not only on intelligence
and personality, but also on the culture, age, and education of the evaluator. Experience
with the task may also have a bearing on the final justification.
Theory and Current Research Support
Jean Piaget (1950) proposed theory of development for intelligence that
progresses in stages beginning at birth a cresting at adolescence. His theory depends on
the assimilation and accommodation of schema (mental models) of objects in the
environment that assist in a reconciliation of the individual to the world. Vygotsky (1978)
contended that cultural influences in a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) impact
intelligence. A single global measure of intelligence, g, was disputed by Gardner (1983)
when he introduced the idea of multiple intelligence. Emotional intelligence was
conceptualized by Mayer, et al. (2004a, 2004b). The operationalization of these theories
provides a measurable way to assess individuals in terms of the ability to think, react to
stimuli, and relate to other people. Quite apart from intelligence is the “flavor” of a
person as described in the personality models. The psychology theory of Carl Jung
(1950) grew through the work of McRae and Costa (2004), and also Cools and Van den
Broeck (2007, 2008) who built models of personality and cognition. Significant overlap
of these theories has been demonstrated in the work of Furnham (2007), Cann (2004),
and Mayer, et al. (2004a). The Intelligence-Personality Complex (cf. Depth section of this
paper) ties together not only people, but also tasks. By this method of reasoning, the
theories of intelligence and personality can bear directly on an equation of cooperation.
This equation can align people with tasks based on solid theoretical considerations of
intelligence and personality.
Motivation by the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs certainly bears on the satisfactory
completion of a task. The basic psychological need for homeostasis and safety would
probably be jeopardized if a worker habitually failed to complete assigned tasks. If one
lost his (her) job, then the ability to buy food and provide for shelter would be threatened.
Also, a potential conflict of interest could arise between the supervisor with a higher need
motivation than that of the subordinate. If the supervisor’s most urgently unmet need is
for esteem, then the supervisor may be more intolerant of the poor performance of a
subordinate that infringes on meeting the esteem need.
Critique of the matrix.
A major drawback to using the matrix is the subjectivity required for assessing the
tasks by its inherent cognitive style features. Anthropomorphically implying human
qualities like intelligence, personality, cognition to a task is justified primarily by the
descriptive terms of Cools and Van den Broeck (2007, 2008). The presumption is that if
cognitive styles of people can be described in terms of preferred task qualities then the
task itself can be ascribed the cognitive style by identity. Additionally, integrating
cognitive style with tasks attempts to use the whole-brain concept by combining the
analytic and intuitive aspects of the left and right hemispheres of the brain (Allinson and
Hayes, 1996). Nothing whatsoever can be implied about the cause and effect of matching
a person with a particular Intelligence-Personality Complex assessment to the satisfactory
completion of a matching task.
Although emotional intelligence is imbedded in the matrix, other multiple
intelligences are not in the matrix. Gf and Gc are for the most part highly correlated with
verbal and logico-mathematical intelligence (Mayer, et al. 2004a). Metrification of
musical, spatial, and bodily-kinesthetic are unknown, so applying these intelligences to
the Intelligence-Personality Complex cannot be accomplished in the matrix. Emotional
intelligence (EI) subsumes the two personal intelligences, intrapersonal and interpersonal,
so they are part of the matrix via EI.
The matrix for aligning tasks with correlated personality and intelligence types
does not address the variation in motivation across people. Hypothetically, paying a very
hungry person with food might be a way to provide high motivation for task completion
completely without regard to the Intelligence-Personality Complex. Coordinating needs
to tasks in a fashion similar to matching personality and intelligence to tasks would make
an interesting study regarding task completion. Such a study would compare the power of
needs to complete task versus the power of matching intelligence and personality to
competing tasks.
Holding together the matrix are the correlation factors. Statistical correlations less
that unity mean less that perfect agreement of the data. The highest correlation factor in
the entire matrix is only r = .54. Acceptably low correlations in social science studies are
a matter of opinion, but r = .20 has been cited by Mayer, et al. (2004a) as significant.
When the correlations are less than r = .20, then the connection between the data sets is
dubious. Most of the data in the matrix are less than r = .20.
Other alternative characteristics of personality and interpersonal preferences are
not part of the matrix. As discussed in the Depth section, “your boss”, “romantic”
partner”, “friend”, and “your employee” are possible ways to segregate relationships.
Intimacy, achievement, dependability, and kindness might be ways to coordinate people,
especially in a work situation of supervisor and subordinate duos (Cann, 2004).
All of the instruments, MSCEIT, NEO-PI, CoSi, and the PEN EPP merely
describe intelligence or personality, but do nothing to actually assess why people behave
as they do. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is intuitively insightful for understanding
motivated behavior, but has yet to be validly operationalized. Ivashchecko and Novikov
(2006) tried to mathematically define the needs, but their model was highly qualified to a
very narrow domain. Harvath (2008) even went so far as to say that Maslow’s hierarchy
was wrong, since exceptions can be found. Greene and Burke (2007) thought Maslow did
not go far enough when they suggest a higher level of need, the selfless actualization.
And finally, Schott (1992) found similarities of Maslow’s self-actualized person with
Jung’s individuated person which at least offers the MBTI a modicum of theoretical
backing. A future for studying motivation might find a way to systematically assess needs
levels and characterize the associated behavior.
Practical possibilities.
Practically, to effect the equation of cooperation via the matrix of correlations, an
organization would have to assess its staff at all levels using the NEO-PI, MBTI,
MSCEIT, and CoSI instruments. The cost might outweigh the benefits unless the data can
be easily acquired. The NEO-PI can be administered for free on the Internet
(http://personalitytest.net/index.htm) and so can the MBTI (www.humanmetrics.com).

Although free, the tests results would need to be professionally assessed before any
credence could be given to them. Given that reliable data were available, and considering
the subjectivity of assessing tasks, then the matrix would prove highly beneficial. The
overarching use of such an approach considers the tried and proven theories of
intelligence and personality as the basis for organizational development. Job descriptions
and job duties can be designed with forethought to employ a specific Intelligence-
Personality Complex. Working groups can be assigned and teams can be formed so as to
avoid adversarial personality types, and where a lack of emotional intelligence could
create a hostile environment. Supervisor and subordinate pairing could utilize the matrix
to understand the best methods of communication.
Beyond the individual level of use, the matrix concept can be applied to whole
organizations with regard to its culture, image, and reputation. The utility of goods and
services can be judged in terms of the Intelligence-Personality Complex. Product design,
packaging, distribution, pricing, and placement all must relate in one way or another to
people as end users. By natural extension, the matrix can be used to produce products and
services tailored a particular niche market with a particular Intelligence-Personality
Complex assessment. Such considerations constitute the underlying theoretical principles
substantiating the veracity of the use of demographics and consumer preference
evaluations in marketing.
Cross-cultural considerations are also possible with the matrix. Vygotsky (1978)
showed clearly that culture affects intelligence. Gardner (1983) showed that the value of
multiple intelligences differ across cultures. Assessing cultures in terms of the

Intelligence-Personality Complex could reveal specific facets for political and diplomatic
attention.
Summary of Application Component
The Application component synergizes the key psychometric instruments of
personality, intelligence and cognition into a matrix that can guide the pairing of
individuals to tasks. The matrix coordinates the cognitive abilities with personality traits
that have shown significant overlap from research studies. The matrix begins with the
CoSI that links to the MBTI. The MBTI is linked with NEO-PI and also Gf and Gc .
NEO-PI is also linked to MSCEIT. The overlap constitutes a platform for reasonably
relating the disparate constructs of intelligence and personality. After assessing an
individual in terms of any of the psychometrics measures, a direct correlation to the other
measures can be traced through the matrix. Several correlation routes are possible
through the matrix. Conversely, by describing a task in terms of the CoSI, albeit
subjectively, a matching intelligence-personality complex can be determined for a
maximally matched person.
Pairing people to tasks based on their Intelligence-Personality Complex offers the
societal benefit of maximizing the natural inclinations of people as they engage their
environment. Maximum utility of human sentience is the result of employing the matrix.
The social benefits is to abate confusion, miscommunication, and to reduce interpersonal
tension caused by pairing individuals with incompatible tasks or other people.
Overall Summary of KAM 2

KAM 2 concerns human development. The Breadth component explores the
theories of intelligence and personality. These are two of the most salient features of
homo sapiens, so understanding these concepts have high impact value on society as a
whole.
The seminal ideas of the psychology of intelligence stretch back over half a
century to Jean Piaget. His theory of how intelligence develops was ingeniously
demonstrated in his experiments with children. Such a successful explanation of how
intelligence develops leaves little room for debate for a competing framework to flourish.
The most significant addition to the theory of intelligence since Piaget has been Howard
Gardner’s idea of multiple intelligences (MI). The brilliant empirical observation of how
intelligence can manifest in particular outcroppings of “special talent”, so easily
demonstrated by savants and prodigies, offers many avenues for additional research.
While verbal and logico-mathematical intelligences have been assessed in the global
factor g for over 100 years, the musical, spatial, and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences have
yet to be measured in practical terms. Interesting would be the exploitation of musical or
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence in the workplace. Unless the entire capability of human
intelligence can be employed, much potential is lost, or at least used for superfluous
purposes. Research into how to engage these other aspects of multiple intelligences
inspires an interesting future for furthering the understanding of the sui generis human
feature: sentient intelligence.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is a relatively recent idea in the field of intelligence
that derives immediately from Gardner’s MI theory (1983). EI is essentially a hybrid of
intelligence and personality. EI serves as a vital linkage between the brain as a sensory
organ and the brain as an evaluator. The unique employment of emotions to mitigate
behavior incorporates an otherwise overlooked usage of the brain. Business generally
eschews the emotional impact of its design and function. Feng shui may begin to
approach the issue of incorporating emotions into the construction of the human
environment. Future studies of the stability of EI across age would be interesting. Testing
the elasticity of the four-branch model to stress, education, and personality type
differences might invigorate the concept with more practical dimensions.
The Depth component surveys current scholarly literature on the theories of
intelligence and personality. Descriptions of personality are embedded in language so
overtly that it is surprising that the Five Factor Model was not discovered until only about
50 years ago. Since its discovery, the Five Factor Model (FFM) has been found in the
confusing taxonomy of the muddled constructs of the other personality models. NEO-PI
has emerged as the most reliable instrument for assessing personality. McRae and Costa
(1992) lamented the fact that so many personality models have been born of defective
theories, while the best model was already present in everyday speech. Appended to the
personality traits are the cognitive styles. Cools and Van den Broeck (2007, 2008) related
their three cognitive styles described in the CoSI to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI). The matrix of correlation indirectly relates the CoSI to the FFM. A direct
correlation study tying the CoSI to the NEO-PI would close a gap in the literature. The
MBTI is a popular personality typing instrument that operationalizes Jungian personality
typing, but it has some defects (Francis, 2007; Furnham, 2007; McRae and Costa, 1989).
The MBTI could be refined and strengthened to clarify its role in personality
assessments.
The Application component shows that an overlap across the psychometric
instruments measuring intelligence, personality and cognitive styles serves as a
theoretical platform for coordinating people to tasks. A matrix of the correlated overlaps
can be used to characterize and match people and tasks. Matching people to tasks based
on intelligence and personality characteristics permits maximal utilization of harmonious
human potential while at the same time abating the possibility of conflicts that could
possibly diminish results.
Gaps remain in the current research. Taxonomies are still emerging. Methods of
research are evolving. The field of human development in terms of intelligence and
personality is thriving in scholarly literature. Fortunately, the field is moving forward
faster than humans are evolving as a species. Many new things about homo sapiens are
yet to be discovered. The future looks bright and enticing for understanding how humans
think and behave.
REFERENCES
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index: A measure of intuition-
analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119–
135.
Cann, A. (2004). Rated Importance of Personal Qualities Across Four Relationships.
Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 322-334.
Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Relation of an Ability Measure of
Emotional Intelligence to Personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(2),
306-320.
Cavazos, J. T., & Campbell, N. J. (2008). Cognitive style revisited: The structure X
cognition interaction. Personality & Individual Differences, 45(6), 498-502. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.001.
Cools, E., & van den Broeck, H. (2007). Development and Validation of the Cognitive
Style Indicator. Journal of Psychology, 141(4), 359-387.
Cools, E. & Herman Van Den Broeck. (2008). Cognitive styles and managerial
behaviour: a qualitative study. Education + Training, 50(2), 103-114.
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary Traits of Eysenck's P-E-N System:
Three-and Five-Factor Solutions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
69(2), 308-317.
Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional
intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and group
citizenship behaviours. Personality & Individual Differences, 36(6), 1443. doi:
10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00240-X.
Eames, C., & Stewart, K. (2008). Personal and relationship dimensions of higher
education science and engineering learning communities. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 26(3), 311-321. doi: 10.1080/02635140802276686.
Francis, L. J., Craig, C. L., & Robbins, M. (2007). The Relationship between
Psychological Type and the Three Major Dimensions of Personality. Current
Psychology, 25(4), 257-271.
Furnham, A., Dissou, G., Sloan, P., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and
Intelligence in Business People: A Study of Two Personality and Two Intelligence

Measures. Journal of Business & Psychology, 22(1), 99-109. doi:
10.1007/s10869-007-9051-z.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic Books
Greene, L., & Burke, G. (2007). Beyond Self-Actualization. Journal of Health & Human
Services Administration, 30(2), 116-128.
Harvath, T. A. (2008). What if Maslow Was Wrong? American Journal of Nursing,
108(4), 11.
Humanmetrics. Jung Typology Test. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
Ivashchenko, A., & Novikov, D. (2006). Model of the hierarchy of needs. Automation &
Remote Control, 67(9), 1512-1517. doi: 10.1134/S0005117906090128.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004a). Emotional Intelligence: Theory,
Findings, and Implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197-215.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004b). A Further Consideration of the Issues
of Emotional Intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 249-255.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of
Personality, 57(1), 17-40. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.ep8972588.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its
Applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.

Personality Test Center. IPIP NEO-PI-R. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from
http://personalitytest.net/index.htm
Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence (M. Piercy & D. Berlyne, Trans). New
York: Routledge Classics.
Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. M. (2005). Motinvation in Developmental Context: A New
Methoid For Studying Self-Acarualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
45(1), 41-53. doi: 10.1177/0022167804269133.
Ratay, J. J. (2001). A User’s Guide to the Brain. New York: Vintage Books
Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., O'Brien, K., MacCann, C., Reid, J., & Maul, A. (2006).
Exploring the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) with established emotions measures. Emotion, 6(4), 663-669. doi:
10.1037/1528-3542.6.4.663.
Schott, R. L. (1992). Abraham Maslow, Humanistic Psychology, and Organization
Leadership: A Jungian Perspective. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 32(1),
106.
Shearer, B. (2004). Multiple Intelligences Theory After 20 Years. Teachers College
Record, 106(1), 2-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00312.x.
Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). g and the measurement of Multiple
Intelligences: A response to Gardner. Intelligence, 34(5), 507-510. doi:
10.1016/j.intell.2006.04.006.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E.
Souberman, Trans). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Human Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge Area Module 2:

Principles of Human Development

Student: Robert E. Keyes, Jr. Robert.KeyesJr@waldenu.edu

Program: PhD in Applied Management and Decision Sciences

KAM Assessor: Aqueil Ahmad, PhD Aqueil.Ahmad@waldenu.edu

Faculty Mentor: Aqueil Ahmad, PhD Aqueil.Ahmad@waldenu.edu

people. Gardner hypothesized multiple intelligences. Personality is collection of

Hierarchy of Needs motivates behavior.

intelligence, personality, cognition, and motivation with emphasis on examining the

construct validity of various psychometric measurement instruments. The MSCEIT is a

characterize an Intelligence-Personality Complex. Logically, the complex can describe

intelligence and personality measures becomes possible by evaluating the psychometric

measurements as an integrated whole.

be accomplished by exploiting the overlap of the psychometric instruments of

either tasks or individuals based on specific Intelligence-Personality Complex

assessments. More expansive use of the matrix considers the Intelligence-Personality

Complex in organizational development, product design, and marketing.

SBSF 8210: THEORIES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

Human development can be examined in terms of physical and psychological

and personality types. These theories guide an understanding of interpersonal dynamics.

Understanding how humans behave individually and collectively is fundamental to any

explanation of human cooperation.

The construct of intelligence both physically and psychologically will be

intelligence emerges in discrete stages from infancy to adulthood. The Russian

Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard, postulated descriptors of multiple intelligences.

cognition from birth to adulthood as a prerequisite to understanding human interaction.

Personality typing is an attempt to further characterize the differences between

individual humans. The Swedish psychologist Carl Jung postulated a foundation of

intuition. The American psychologist Abraham H. Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs

A foundation of the physical development of intelligence will be described in

conjunction with the concomitant psychological implications by synthesis of the ideas of

foundation to complete a proposed construct of intelligence. Next, the motivations of

useful in understanding human interaction.

Intelligence is simultaneously a biological and logical potential to process

included in a definition of intelligence the activation of intelligence by cultural influences

and by the utility of problem solving. Piaget (1950) considered intelligence to be a

be fully explained in the next section.

Intelligence can be described by multiple attributes, such as linguistic, spatial,

bodily-kinesthetic, logico-mathematical, musical, personal intelligences as postulated by

speak, think, display emotions, and be self-aware.

The biological basis of intelligence.

constitute intelligence per se.

determined by studying brain damaged individuals. Stroke victims with damage to

The psychology of intelligence.

Piaget (1950) outlined a series of stages of the development of intelligence and

individual. The first part of establishing equilibrium is assimilation of the object in

experiences. The reverse of assimilation is accommodation where the object imputes a

structure to the individual. Adaptation is the combination of assimilation and

in the environment. Constant adaptation by the individual of objects builds up schema.

Schemas are psychological groupings of equilibriums that are internalized by the

individual. A key point to understanding Piaget’s concept of how intelligence develops is

(1950) labeled this initial stage the Sensori-Motor Stage.

completely developed yet.

using more formal methods of logic (Piaget, 1950).

the use of reflective thought and hypothetico-deductive mechanisms of reasoning in

societal influences (Vygotsky, 1978).

Lev Vygotsky, a contemporary of Piaget, suggested that the development of

the development of intelligence.

Vygotsky described technical thinking as the genesis of intelligence. Technical

useful work (Vygotsky, 1978).

Vygotsky postulated the concept of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to

maturity, an actual developmental level is achieved that can be measured by reference to

problem solving ability. The actual developmental level is an end-stage of intelligence up