Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Intelligence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/intell

The costs of being exceptionally intelligent: Compatibility and interpersonal T

skill concerns☆
Gilles E. Gignac , Zoe M.V. Callis
⁎

School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia

ABSTRACT

People tend to rate exceptional levels of IQ (99th percentile) as less attractive than high levels of IQ (90th percentile), and it remains to be determined why.
Furthermore, the desirability of emotional intelligence (EI) in a prospective partner has yet to be investigated. Finally, we sought to determine whether individual
differences in self-assessed and objectively measured IQ/EI correlated with desirability ratings of IQ/EI in a prospective partner. Based on a general community
sample (N = 236) and an undergraduate sample (N = 220), we found that the association between rated desirability and the IQ/EI level of a prospective partner
exhibited a threshold effect at the 90th IQ/EI percentile. Furthermore, a statistically significant decrease in rated desirability between the 90th to the 99th percentiles
was observed for IQ, but not for EI. We found that participants who reduced their ratings of desirability between the 90th and 99th IQ percentiles did so due to
compatibility concerns (≈60%) and social skill concerns (≈40%). We also found that self-assessed IQ and objectively measured IQ correlated positively with
desirability ratings at the 90th IQ percentile, and self-assessed EI (but not objectively measured EI) with desirability ratings at the 90th EI percentile. Finally, we
found that, on average, people ranked/rated EI to be somewhat more desirable than IQ. We interpreted the results as consistent with compatibility theory, active
assortative mating for intelligence, and the possibility that many people subscribe to the stereotype that exceptionally intelligent people suffer from interpersonal
skill difficulties.

1. Introduction
Cognitive intelligence (IQ) is one of the most attractive traits in a
potential romantic partner (Buss et al., 1990; Gignac, Darbyshire, &
Ooi, 2018; Goodwin & Tinker, 2002). From a strict biological per-
spective, the desirability of a prospective partner should increase line-
arly with the prospective partner's level of IQ, as intelligence is asso-
ciated with incrementally beneficial biological characteristics
(Hagenaars et al., 2016). However, exceptional levels of IQ
(IQ = 140+; 99th percentile) have been found to be rated, on average,
less attractive than high levels of IQ (i.e., IQ = 120; 90th percentile;
Gignac et al., 2018; Gignac & Starbuck, 2019). Gignac et al. (2018)
suggested two possibilities for why people, on average, rate exceptional
intelligence as less attractive: (1) compatibility concerns; and (2) con-
cerns that highly intelligent people are more likely to have inter-
personal skill deficits. The first purpose of this investigation was to
investigate these two possibilities.
In contrast to IQ, there is relatively little research on the attrac-
tiveness of emotional intelligence (EI) in a prospective romantic
partner. Some research suggests that higher levels of EI may be rated
progressively attractive (Schutte et al., 2001). However, there is also
some evidence to suggest that people may prefer individuals with EI
levels similar to their own (Śmieja & Stolarski, 2018). Consequently, the
second purpose of this investigation was to determine the ideal level of
EI in a prospective romantic partner. Furthermore, on the basis of the
assortative mating for intelligence literature (Bouchard & McGue,
1981), we hypothesized that individual differences in raters' level of IQ
and EI would correlate positively with their desirability ratings of a
prospective partner's level of IQ and EI, respectively. Finally, we sought
to determine which of the intelligences people rate as more attractive in
a prospective partner: IQ or EI?
1.1. Partner desirability and cognitive intelligence
At a high level of abstraction, cognitive intelligence represents an
entity's capacity to adapt to the environment successfully using cogni-
tive processes (McIntosh, Dixon, & Pierson, 2005; Pintner, 1923). In
practice, among both academics and lay people alike, the IQ of humans
is commonly considered to vary across dimensions such as logical
reasoning, knowledge of worldly facts, memory span and processing
speed, for example (Furnham, 2001; Gignac, 2018; Sternberg, Conway,
Ketron, & Bernstein, 1981). Furthermore, IQ is a well-established po-
sitive correlate of socially attractive characteristics such as educational
attainment, job status, and earnings (Gottfredson, 2002; Zagorsky,

☆
Correspondence should be addressed to Gilles E. Gignac, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia,
6009, Australia. E-mail: gilles.gignac@uwa.edu.au; thanks to Travis Dunkley and Brooke Shepherdson for help with data collection.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gilles.gignac@uwa.edu.au (G.E. Gignac).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101465
Received 14 January 2020; Received in revised form 5 April 2020; Accepted 27 May 2020
0160-2896/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis
2007), characteristics that tend to be considered attractive in a long-
term romantic partner (Buss & Schmidt, 1993; Buunk, Dijkstra,
Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002). Furthermore, the socio-economic
benefits of IQ (e.g., earnings) have been reported to manifest them-
selves progressively, even at the highest levels of IQ (Lubinski &
Benbow, 2006).
Correspondingly, IQ has been found to be ranked the second or third
most desirable characteristic in a prospective partner, behind only ‘kind
and understanding’ and (sometimes) ‘exciting personality’ (Buss et al.,
1990; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Goodwin & Tinker, 2002). Beyond the so-
cioeconomic benefits, IQ has been argued to be an attractive partner
characteristic, as it is associated positively with biological fitness and
better health (Der, Batty, & Deary, 2009; Lubinski & Benbow, 2006;
Prokosch, Yeo, & Miller, 2005). Additionally, IQ is known to be sub-
stantially heritable (Plomin & von Stumm, 2018), and at least some of
the identified genes appear to influence the whole spectrum of the IQ
continuum (Zabeneh et al., 2018). Furthermore, large scale genetics
research has found that the genes associated with IQ predispose a
person to biological benefits in an incremental manner (e.g., Hagenaars
et al., 2016). On the basis of such evidence, Gignac et al. (2018) argued
that the association between rated attractiveness and the IQ of a pro-
spective partner may be hypothesized to be linear, as the biological and
social benefits of IQ have been found to be largely consistent across the
full spectrum of the dimension. Gignac et al. (2018) labelled such an
expectation the ‘biological hypothesis’.
However, empirical research on the rated desirability of prospective
partners and their level of IQ has failed to support the biological hy-
pothesis. For example, based on a mixed sample (general community
and university students; N = 383), Gignac et al. (2018) found that the
association between rated desirability of a prospective partner and the
level of IQ of a hypothetical prospective partner was found to be cubic
(i.e., two bends in the pattern of mean ratings). Specifically, desirability
ratings increased moderately between the 1st and the 25th IQ percen-
tiles, and then substantially from the 25th to the 75th IQ percentiles.
Importantly, after a slight increase between the 75th and 90th IQ per-
centiles, a statistically significant decrease in rated desirability was
observed between the 90th and 99th IQ percentiles. The same pattern of
results was replicated in Gignac and Starbuck (2019), based on a
sample of first year university students (N = 214). Thus, the results of
both Gignac et al. (2018) and Gignac and Starbuck (2019) were not
consistent with the biological hypothesis. Instead, the results were in-
terpreted to be consistent with the ‘threshold hypothesis’, i.e., the
benefits of IQ diminish or cease after a certain point (Torrance, 1962).
Thus, one or more other factors likely impacted people's views on the
desirability of IQ in a prospective partner.
1.2. Why is there a threshold effect?
An important limitation of Gignac et al. (2018) and Gignac and
Starbuck (2019) is that they did not investigate why, on average, people
rated IQ at the 99th percentile as less attractive than the 90th percen-
tile. However, Gignac et al. (2018) did suggest two possible psychoso-
cial factors that may have impacted the rated desirability of an ex-
ceptionally intelligent prospective partner: (1) compatibility concerns;
and (2) interpersonal skill deficit concerns.
Firstly, Gignac et al. (2018) suggested that exceptional levels of IQ
may be, on average, rated as less attractive, because raters may be
concerned that they would be incompatible with someone exceptionally
intelligent. Correspondingly, there is evidence that people consider
intellectual compatibility, when evaluating the compatibility of a pro-
spective partner (e.g., Jonason et al., 2019; Wilson & Cousins, 2003).
Thus, on the basis of compatibility concerns, it is possible that, on
average, people rate a person with an IQ at the 99th percentile as less
attractive than the 90th percentile, because most people self-report
their own IQ to be somewhere between 110 and 120, i.e., less than the
99th percentile (Furnham, 2001; Gignac & Zajenkowski, 2019; von
2
Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465
Stumm, 2014).
Secondly, Gignac et al. (2018) suggested that some raters may have
had concerns that an exceptionally intelligent person would lack social
skills, as there is research to suggest that a non-negligible percentage of
people believe that exceptionally intelligent people have interpersonal
difficulties. For example, Baudson (2016) found that two thirds of
people in the general community held the view that intellectually gifted
people tend to have greater difficulties with social situations, in com-
parison to people with average IQ (see also Rodríguez-Nieto, Sánchez-
González, & Sánchez-Miranda, 2019). Therefore, it is possible that the
mean reduction in rated desirability for a prospective partner from the
90th to the 99th IQ percentiles was observed because a non-negligible
number of respondents in Gignac et al. (2018) and Gignac and Starbuck
(2019) made a perceived trade-off of IQ points for social skills. The two
hypotheses suggested by Gignac et al. (2018), compatibility and social
skill concerns, could be tested by asking respondents who reduce their
ratings of desirability from the 90th to the 99th percentile why they did
so.
1.3. Emotional intelligence as an attractive partner trait
At a high level of abstraction, emotional intelligence may be defined
as the “…ability to purposively adapt, shape and select environments
through the use of emotionally relevant processes” (Gignac, 2010a, p.
131). Ability-based (maximum performance with tests) and trait-based
(combination of self-reported abilities, traits, self-esteem, and well-
being) measures are two common approaches to the measurement of EI
(Petrides, 2011). Both approaches typically measure several positively
interrelated dimensions, including perceiving, using, understanding
and managing emotions (Gignac, 2010b; Petrides, 2011; Salovey &
Mayer, 1990). EI has been shown to predict job performance, in-
dependently of the effects of IQ (Joseph, Jin, Newman, & O'Boyle, 2015;
O'Boyle Jr, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011), suggesting that
EI may be regarded as a socially attractive characteristic in a person.
Additionally, EI has been found to correlate positively with several
indicators of romantic relationship success (Apostolou, Paphiti, Neza,
Damianou, & Georgiadou, 2019; Schröder-Abé & Schütz, 2011; Zarch,
Marashi, & Raji, 2014). Consequently, given that EI is a dimension
associated with socioeconomic and inter-personal benefits, it would be
expected that, on average, people would rate EI as a desirable trait in a
prospective partner.
To date, little research has evaluated specifically whether people
consider EI to be a desirable trait in a romantic partner. For example,
the publication of the Buss and Barnes' (1986) Partner Preference Scale
predates the academic publication of the construct of EI (Salovey &
Mayer, 1990) and EI has not been included in any adaptation. In per-
haps the only relevant study, Schutte et al. (2001) found that university
students predicted they would find more satisfying a relationship with
someone who was adept at managing their own and others' emotions, in
comparison to someone without those abilities.
Although the Schutte et al. (2001) study had strengths, it should
also be acknowledged that, strictly speaking, Schutte et al. (2001) did
not measure the desirability or attractiveness of EI in a prospective
partner, per se. Instead, the link between EI and anticipated relation-
ship satisfaction only implies that higher levels of EI are attractive in a
prospective partner. Additionally, Schutte et al. (2001) did not design
their study to evaluate whether there might be a threshold effect for EI,
as reported for IQ by Gignac et al. (2018) and Gignac and Starbuck
(2019). Finally, Schutte et al.'s (2001) study did not compare EI with
other known desirable traits, consequently, the degree to which EI may
be desirable in a partner could not be contextualised with comparisons
to other desirable traits.
As described above, people may prefer partners who have relatively
higher levels of EI, because of the corresponding interpersonal and
socioeconomic benefits (Joseph et al., 2015; Schröder-Abé & Schütz,
2011). However, as per IQ, it is possible that the association between
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis
partner attractiveness ratings and partner EI may be consistent with a
threshold effect, on the basis of compatibility theory (Huston & Houts,
1998). That is, as most people rate their EI at substantially less than the
99th percentile (Petrides & Furnham, 2000), exceptional levels of EI
may not be perceived to be the most desirable level in a prospective
partner, on average, in a manner similar to that observed for IQ
(Gignac, 2019; Gignac et al., 2018). We also note that the degree of
friendship among friends has been found to correlate positively with the
degree of similarity in ability to recognise emotions in faces (Brauer &
DePaulo, 1980), a dimension of EI (Schütz & Koydemir, 2018). Such a
result suggests that people may seek out relationships with people with
whom they share similar levels of EI abilities.
In summary, although a substantial amount of research has shown
‘intelligent’ to be ranked the second or third most desirable character-
istic in a romantic partner (Buss et al., 1990; Gignac et al., 2018;
Goodwin & Tinker, 2002), no research has compared ‘cognitively in-
telligent’ and ‘emotionally intelligent’ within the context of the Buss/
Barnes Partner Preference scale. Additionally, although an IQ of 120
has been shown to be the most attractive level, on average, in a pro-
spective partner on the basis of the measurement approach employed
by Gignac et al. (2018); Gignac (2019), whether EI is associated with a
similar threshold effect remains to be determined.
1.4. Predictors of IQ/EI rated desirability
Although Gignac et al. (2018) and Gignac and Starbuck (2019) re-
ported mean differences of rated desirability across the IQ percentiles,
Gignac et al. (2018) and Gignac and Starbuck (2019) also reported non-
negligible individual differences in the desirability ratings of the pro-
spective partners across the IQ percentiles. Correspondingly, not ev-
eryone reduced their ratings of desirability from the 90th to the 99th
percentiles, implying that some people were attracted to exceptional
levels of IQ, and even more so than high levels of IQ. What may in-
fluence such individual differences?
Gignac et al. (2018) suggested that a positive association may be
observed between the degree to which people rate the attractiveness of
a prospective partner with a specified level of IQ and the objectively
measured IQ of those raters, as there is evidence for assortative mating
for IQ (r ≈ 0.30 to 0.40; Gignac & Zajenkowski, 2019; Watson et al.,
2004; van Leeuwen, van Den Berg, & Boomsma, 2008), and the corre-
lation is observed early in the relationship, suggesting that mate se-
lection is the cause of the spousal IQ correlation (Mascie-Taylor, 1989).
However, Gignac (2019) failed to find an association between general
intelligence and individual differences in ratings of desirability of a
prospective partner with IQs specified at the 75th, 90th, and 99th
percentiles. By contrast, correlations of approximately −0.20 to −0.25
were observed for the corresponding below average IQ percentiles.
Thus, Gignac and Starbuck (2019) suggested that relatively intelligent
people may have a tendency to simply find unattractive relatively un-
intelligent people, rather than find attractive relatively intelligent
people. However, Gignac and Zajenkowski (2019) suggested the cor-
relations appeared to be small, considering the magnitude of the as-
sortative mating for IQ effect. Consequently, Gignac (2019) re-
commended replication of the effect, prior to drawing firm conclusions.
Gignac and Starbuck (2019) also suggested that a person's self-
perceived IQ, rather than objective IQ, may associate more sub-
stantially with their attraction ratings for a potential partner with a
specified level of IQ, as people would be expected to be more aware of
how intelligent they think themselves to be, rather than how intelligent
they are objectively. However, Gignac and Zajenkowski (2019) failed to
find an association between self-reported IQ (9-item questionnaire) and
rated interest in a prospective partner with a specified level of IQ,
contrary to expectations, given the evidence for compatibility theory
and assortative mating for IQ.
One arguable limitation associated with Gignac and Starbuck
(2019) is that they measured self-perceptions of IQ with a multi-item
3
Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465
questionnaire in which the response scale was a typical 5-point Likert
scale (e.g., ‘I know a lot of worldly facts,’ and ‘I am poor at solving
logical problems, from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). However,
composite scores from such a scale may not correspond closely to
people's perceptions of their own IQ relative to others, which is argu-
ably more relevant to the rated desirability of prospective partners
distinguished by their specified level of IQ, if assortative mating/com-
patibility theory plays a role in the mate selection process. Another
approach would be to request participants to specify their IQ along a
percentile continuum, an established measurement approach in the
field (e.g., Furnham, Moutafi, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005; Swami,
Furnham, & Zilkha, 2009; von Stumm, 2014). Such a measurement
approach may help increase the chances of observing a positive asso-
ciation between self-rated IQ and ratings of attraction for a hypothetical
romantic partner with a specified level of IQ. Although the evidence for
assortative mating for EI is inconsistent (Schröder-Abé & Schütz, 2011;
Śmieja & Stolarski, 2018; Zeidner & Kaluda, 2008), we also explored
the possibility that self-assessed EI measured on a percentile continuum
would relate positively with the ratings of attraction for a hypothetical
romantic partner with a specified level of EI.
1.5. Summary and purpose
The rated desirability of a prospective partner has been shown to
increase in a nonlinear manner across levels of specified IQ in a pro-
spective partner, such that a prospective partner with exceptional levels
of IQ (140+) is viewed as, on average, somewhat less attractive than
high levels of IQ (i.e., 120; Gignac et al., 2018; Gignac & Starbuck,
2019). However, it remains to be determined why the mean reduction
in rated desirability occurs. On the basis of the suggestions made by
Gignac et al. (2018), we hypothesized that two factors, (1) compat-
ibility concerns, and/or (2) the stereotype that intellectually gifted
people struggle with interpersonal skills, may play a role.
Additionally, although some research suggests that EI may be re-
garded as an attractive ability/trait in a prospective partner (Schutte
et al., 2001), little to no research has evaluated this possibility directly.
Consequently, we sought to determine whether the association between
desirability ratings of prospective partners and their suggested levels of
EI exhibited a nonlinear (threshold) effect similar to that reported for
IQ.
On the basis of compatibility theory (Huston & Houts, 1998), as well
as the evidence of assortative mating for IQ (Mascie-Taylor, 1988), we
also hypothesized that individual differences in self-reported in-
telligence (IQ and EI) would correlate positively with ratings of desir-
ability for a prospective partner with a relatively high level of IQ. Fi-
nally, given the relatively little research on the attractiveness of EI as a
partner characteristic, it was considered useful to add ‘emotionally in-
telligent’ as a 14th prospective partner characteristic to Buss and
Barnes' (1986) Partner Preference Scale. It was hypothesized that
‘emotionally intelligent’ would be ranked relatively highly, however,
whether it would be ranked more highly than ‘cognitively intelligent’
was a possibility we explored.
2. Method
2.1. Sample
For sample 1 (‘general community sample’), we recruited 254 par-
ticipants (Asian 5%; Black/African American = 8%; Multiracial = 5%;
White/Caucasian = 81%) from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a
platform that has been shown to yield reasonably reliable and valid
data (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). The only filter applied in
the MTurk recruitment was that the respondents needed to be US re-
sidents. Eighteen of the 254 MTurk responders (7.1%) were excluded
from the final sample, as they were deemed not to have completed the
questionnaires entirely seriously (i.e., their pattern of responses to one
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis
or more of the questionnaires was implausible). Excluding these parti-
cipants did not impact the conclusions made in this investigation. The
final MTurk sample consisted of 236 participants (age M = 39.19;
SD = 12.27; range = 20 to 82) with approximately equal numbers of
males (56.4%) and females (43.6%). Finally, the MTurk sample had an
educational profile somewhat more educated than the general US po-
pulation (United States Census Bureau, 2019): some high
school = 0.4%; high school graduate or graduate equivalency = 12.7%;
associate's technical degree = 5.9%; some college = 15.3%; associate's
academic degree (2 years) = 8.5%; bachelor's degree = 44.9%; master's
degree = 8.9%; professional school degree = 3.0%; doctoral de-
gree = 0%; prefer not to say = 0.4%.
For sample 2, we recruited 239 English as a first language, first year
undergraduate psychology students (received partial course credit)
from a predominantly white Anglo-Saxon university. Data from twelve
of the participants were removed, as they were deemed insufficiently
proficient in English (e.g., looked up English words on their phone
during testing). Additionally, seven participants did not complete the
entire testing protocol for various reasons (e.g., not feeling well, tech-
nical problem). Thus, the final total sample consisted of 220 partici-
pants (69.5% female, age M = 20.70, SD = 6.10; range: 17 to 50). As
we describe below, the key difference between samples 1 and 2 is that
we had scores from self-reported intelligence and objective intelligence
measures for sample 2. This research was approved by The University of
Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (RA/4/1/6704).
The data have been made available via the Open Science Framework:
https://osf.io/sn872/
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Partner Preference Scale
The Buss/Barnes Partner Preference Scale requires participants to
rank 13 traits in a prospective partner, from most important to least
important (Buss & Barnes, 1986). The original traits include: kind and
understanding, exciting personality, intelligent, physically attractive,
healthy, easygoing, creative and artistic, wants children, college grad-
uate, good earning capacity, good heredity, good housekeeper, and
religious (Buss & Barnes, 1986). For the current study, the Partner
Preference Scale was modified. Specifically, ‘intelligent’ was changed to
‘cognitively intelligent’. Additionally, ‘emotionally intelligent’ was
added as a 14th trait. This measure was included in samples 1 and 2.
For sample 1, the presentation order of the traits was randomized across
participants.
2.2.2. Percentile Partner Interest Scale–Cognitive Intelligence (IQ)
The Percentile Partner Interest Scale measures the degree to which a
respondent finds a prospective partner attractive on the basis of a
specified level of a trait, in this case, IQ. As per Gignac et al. (2018),
participants were asked, “Suppose you were single (if you're not) and
you met someone single that, at first sight, potentially interested you.
How interested would you be in the person as a potential partner (e.g.
marriage, children), if you later learned that their intelligence level was
such that they were smarter than [1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%,
99%] of the population?” For each of the seven percentile points,
participants rated their level of interest on a six-point scale: extremely
uninterested = 1; very uninterested = 2; uninterested = 3; inter-
ested = 4; very interested = 5; and extremely interested = 6. This
measure was included in samples 1 and 2.
2.2.3. Percentile Partner Interest Scale–Emotional Intelligence (EI)
An adaptation of the Percentile Partner Interest Scale was ad-
ministered to investigate the degree to which a respondent found a
prospective partner attractive on the basis of a specified level of EI.
Specifically, participants were asked, “Suppose you were single (if
you're not) and you met someone single that, at first sight, potentially
interested you. How interested would you be in the person as a
4
Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465
potential partner (e.g. marriage, children), if you later learned that
their emotional intelligence level was such that they were more emo-
tionally intelligent than [1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 99%] of the
population?” For each of the seven percentile points, participants rated
their level of interest on a six-point scale: extremely uninterested = 1;
very uninterested = 2; uninterested = 3; interested = 4; very inter-
ested = 5; and extremely interested = 6. This measure was included in
samples 1 and 2.
2.2.4. Extensions to Percentile Partner Interest Scales: IQ and EI
To investigate why some participants did not rate the 99th per-
centile as the most attractive, for sample 1, we followed up the
Percentile Partner Interest Scale (IQ) with the following:
“For the question above, if your level of interest was not highest for
someone smarter than 99% of the population, why was that so?
(Select both reasons below, if both reasons apply).
A: I'm worried that someone exceptionally intelligent would be
socially awkward
B: I'm worried that I would not be compatible with someone who is
exceptionally intelligent.
C: This question does not apply to me. My highest interest was in
fact for someone smarter than 99% of the population.”
The participants could select options A and/or B, or C, or provide no
answer, if neither A nor B explained the reason for their reduced rat-
ings.
For sample 2, the extension to the Percentile Partner Interest Scale-
IQ was slightly different. Specifically, those who reduced their rated
interest from the 90th to the 99thpercentile of IQ were asked why they
did so:
“You've indicated that you would be less interested in someone who
is smarter than 99% of the population, in comparison to someone
who is smarter than 90% of the population. Why did you reduce
your rating of attraction?”
The participants were provided with the same options, A and B, as
specified above. Additionally, for sample 2, the participants were given
the option to provide qualitative comments (free text), in order to
capture responses beyond the multiple-choice options. Furthermore, we
also made available the option of providing free-text responses to those
who reduced their partner interest ratings between the 90th and the
99th EI percentiles, in order to gain some insights into why some par-
ticipants may have reduced their rating of attractiveness.
2.2.5. Self-Reported IQ and EI
Self-reported cognitive intelligence (SRIQ) was measured in sample 2
with the Self-Report Intelligence Questionnaire (SRIQ; Gignac, Stough,
& Loukomitis, 2004). The SRIQ is a 9-item questionnaire whereby each
item is responded to on 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to
strongly agree). Three of the items are keyed negatively. Each item is
roughly representative of one of the subtests within the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scales (e.g., ‘I know a lot of worldly facts’; ‘I am poor at
solving logical problems’). The ninth item is a general indicator (‘I am
intelligent’). Internal consistency reliability was estimated at α = 0.70.
Self-reported emotional intelligence (SREI) was measured in sample 2 with
the slight adaptation of the 70-item Genos Emotional Intelligence In-
ventory (Genos EI; Palmer, Stough, Hamer, & Gignac, 2009). Although
self-report in nature (7-point Likert scale; 1 = Never, 2 = Almost
Never, 3 = Seldom, 4 = Sometimes, 5 = Usually, 6 = Almost Always,
7 = Always), Genos EI is arguably better characterized as a self-report
measure of EI, rather than a mixed-model (combination of abilities,
traits, self-esteem, well-being, for example) measure of EI (see Petrides,
2011), as the items are all closely aligned with the capacity to use EI
skills (Gignac, 2010b). Example items include, ‘I am effective in helping
others feel positive,’ and ‘I fail to handle stressful situations effectively’.
Six of the items are keyed negatively. Internal consistency reliability
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis
was estimated at α = 0.84 for the total scale scores.
2.2.6. Self-Assessed Intelligence: IQ and EI
For sample 2, self-assessed cognitive intelligence (SAIQ) was measured
with a single item designed to measure a person's IQ on a percentile
scale.1 The instructions include a definition of IQ and a description of a
percentile:
“Cognitive intelligence represents the ability to acquire knowledge,
reason with the knowledge, and use it to solve logical problems
effectively. People differ with respect to their cognitive intelligence
and can have a low, an average or a high level. Using the following
scale, please indicate where you would place yourself compared to
other people. Specifically, slide the scale to the appropriate point
corresponding to your level of cognitive intelligence relative to
others.”
The participant responds to the item with a slider scale that ranges
from 1 to 100 (See Fig. S1A). Self-assessed emotional intelligence (SAEI)
was measured with a single item designed to measure a person's EI on a
percentile scale. The instructions include a definition of EI and a de-
scription of a percentile:
“Emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive emotions, use
emotions to help with thinking, understand emotional meanings,
and manage emotions. People differ with respect to their emotional
intelligence and can have a low, an average or a high level. Using
the following scale, please indicate where you would place yourself
compared to other people. Specifically, slide the scale to the ap-
propriate point corresponding to your level of emotional in-
telligence relative to others.”
The participant responds to the item with a slider scale that ranges
from 1 to 100 (See Fig. S1B).
2.2.7. Task-Based Cognitive Intelligence (TBIQ)
For sample 2, task-based IQ was measured across four dimensions of
cognitive ability: processing speed, crystallized intelligence, fluid in-
telligence, and memory span. Processing speed was measured with the
two subtests (Numbers and Numbers/Letters) within the Connections
battery (Salthouse et al., 2000). These tests are very similar to the well-
known Trails A/Trails B tests (Reitan, 1958). On the basis of the cor-
relations between the two processing speed tests, the internal con-
sistency reliability of the overall processing speed composite scores was
estimated at 0.56. Crystallized intelligence was measured with the Ad-
vanced Vocabulary Test (AVT; Gignac, Shankaralingam, Walker, &
Kilpatrick, 2016), a 21-item multiple choice test comprised of relatively
difficult words to define, by selecting the most appropriate of the five
alternatives (α = 0.67 this sample). Fluid intelligence was measured with
the odd items from the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM; Raven,
1966). Participants were given 10 min to complete the APM short form
(α = 0.71 this sample). Finally, memory span was measured with a
slight adaptation of the Letter–Number Sequencing Test (LNS;
Wechsler, 2008; α = 0.80 this sample). On the basis of a factor analysis
(maximum likelihood) and the extraction of single factor, we obtained
the following standardized g-loadings: APM = 0.72; Connec-
tions = 0.68; LNS = 0.65; and AVT = 0.63.
2.2.8. Task-Based Emotional Intelligence (TBEI)
For sample 2, task-based EI was measured with the brief version of
the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU; Allen,
Weissman, Hellwig, MacCann, & Roberts, 2014; MacCann & Roberts,
1
For the purposes of this investigation, we distinguished between self-re-
ported intelligence, which was measured with a typical multi-item ques-
tionnaire that includes a Likert response scale, versus self-assessed intelligence,
which was measured with a single-item and a percentile type scale.
5
Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465
2008). The brief STEU consists of 19 vignettes designed to represent a
situation that can be expected to elicit an emotion from the principal
character in the vignette. The testee must select from five response
alternatives the most appropriate emotion for the vignette. Based on the
results of several investigations (Austin, 2010; Libbrecht & Lievens,
2012; Schlegel, Fontaine, & Scherer, 2017), the STEU may be con-
sidered a valid indicator of ability-based EI, on the basis of its positive
correlation with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT), a social theory of mind ability test, and an emotional re-
cognition test, for example. However, based on sample 2, we found the
internal consistency reliability to be very low α = 0.26 (discussed fur-
ther in the results below).
2.3. Procedure
For sample 1 (‘general community sample’), all testing was com-
pleted on a computer with the questions hosted on Qualtrics. A
Qualtrics link was provided through the MTurk platform. After com-
pleting the informed consent form, the participants completed the Buss/
Barnes Partner Preference Scale. Next, the participants completed the
Percentile Partner Interest Scales (IQ and EI; order randomized for
sample 1). Finally, the participants completed the self-assessed IQ and
the self-assessed EI single-item scales (order randomized for sample 1).
Total testing time was approximately 7 min.
For sample 2 (‘undergraduate sample’), participants were tested in-
person by one of three research assistants. After completing the consent
form, the participants completed the demographic questions, a self-re-
port narcissism scale (different study), the self-reported IQ ques-
tionnaire, the Advanced Vocabulary test, the Advance Progressive
Matrices, the Buss/Barnes ranking questionnaire, the Situational Test of
Emotional Understanding, Genos EI, a novel test of emotional re-
cognition (different study), Letter-Number Sequencing, the Connections
test, the Percentile Partner Interests Scales (IQ and EI), and the single-
item self-assessed intelligence scale (IQ and EI). All of the tests were
administered on a computer, with the exception of the Letter-Number
Sequencing and Connections tests (administered face-to-face). The total
testing time was approximately 55 min.
2.4. Data analysis
All of the sample 1 and sample 2 quantitative analyses were per-
formed with SPSS and Amos version 25.0. First, we analysed the
Partner Percentile Interest Scales' (IQ and EI) data with a factorial re-
peated measures ANOVA approach (for samples 1 and 2). Specifically,
we tested a 2 × 7 repeated measures factorial ANOVA with intelligence
type as a main effect (two levels; cognitive and emotional) and an in-
telligence level main effect (seven levels/percentiles). If the data were
consistent with a threshold effect, we anticipated a statistically sig-
nificant nonlinear trend in the data (i.e., cubic effects). Furthermore, we
hypothesized a statistically significant reduction in the rated mean
desirability of IQ from the 90th to the 99th percentiles. We explored
such a possibility with the EI data.
Next, for samples 1 and 2, we estimated the percentages of people
who did not rate the 99th IQ and EI percentiles as the most desirable.
Furthermore, for sample 2, the open-ended responses were analysed
with a qualitative strategy. In light of the lack of prior empirical re-
search on the reasons underlying the threshold effect of IQ in the
context of partner attraction, as well as the lack of research examining
EI as a partner trait, grounded theory methodology was drawn upon to
analyse the open-ended responses. The grounded theory approach in-
volves systematic data coding and analysis procedures to derive in-
ductively a theory about a phenomenon (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). See
the Supplementary Section for further details and Tables S1 and S2 for
the coding structures.
To estimate the associations between the individual difference
variables and rated interest in a prospective partner with a specified
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis
level of IQ, we performed latent Pearson correlations between the
percentile-based self-assessed measures (IQ and EI) and the responses to
the Percentile Partner Interest Scales (IQ and EI). On the basis of a
factor analysis with the extraction of two factors (maximum likelihood;
promax rotation), we found that the 10th IQ percentile loaded on the
first IQ factor at 0.99 and 0.97 for samples 1 and 2, respectively; and
the 90th IQ percentile loaded on the second IQ factor at 0.99 and 0.90
and for samples 1 and 2, respectively. Correspondingly, we found that
the 10th EI percentile loaded on the first EI factor at 0.99 and 0.97 for
samples 1 and 2, respectively; and the 90th EI percentile on the second
EI factor at 0.99 and 0.99, respectively. Consequently, for the latent
correlational analyses, we used the 10th percentile and the 90th per-
centile observed scores to represent the lower and upper intelligence
percentiles, respectively. The latent variable correlations were esti-
mated via maximum-likelihood estimation.
Finally, for samples 1 and 2, we analysed the Buss/Barnes Partner
Preference Scale rank data, in order to evaluate the attractiveness of the
‘cognitively intelligent’ and ‘emotionally intelligent’ mate character-
istics. As conventional non-parametric statistical techniques often yield
less insightful information than parametric analyses (Cooper & Weekes,
1983), we employed a least squares regression-based paired-samples t-
test established by Hedberg and Ayers (2015), in order to test the dif-
ference between mean mate characteristic ranks associated with the
Buss/Barnes Partner Preference Scale. The procedure involves calcu-
lating difference scores between the two paired variables, mean cen-
tering one of the paired variables, and then regressing the differences
scores onto the mean centered variable. In this analysis, the constant
associated with the regression equation represents the mean difference
and can be tested for statistical significance (Hedberg & Ayers, 2015).
As the paired variables of interest in this portion of the investigation
were measured with ranks, bias-corrected accelerated confidence in-
tervals were estimated via bootstrapping (2000 replications), i.e., an
estimation method that does not assume interval/ratio measurement
(Efron & Tibshirani, 1993).
3. Results
Excluding the rank data from the Buss/Barnes Partner Preference
Scale, all of the variable distributions were considered sufficiently
normal for parametric analyses (i.e., skew < |2.0| kurtosis < |9.0|;
Gignac, 2019; see Table S3 and Table S4 for complete descriptive sta-
tistics). Furthermore, no outliers were identified based on the Hoaglin
and Iglewicz (1987) inter-quartile range outlier labelling rule with a 3.0
multiplier.
3.1. Percentile partner interest scale
To determine whether the ratings of desirability for a prospective
partner were consistent with a nonlinear (threshold) effect, a 2 × 7
factorial repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with intelligence
type (cognitive and emotional) as a within-subjects factor and the in-
telligence percentiles (1st to 99th) as another within-subjects factor,
across samples 1 and 2. We note that the assumption of sphericity was
violated, consequently, the Huynh-Feldt adjusted results are reported.
The intelligence type main effect (emotional versus cognitive) was
not significant statistically for samples 1 or 2 (see Table 1).2 By con-
trast, the intelligence percentile main effect was significant statistically
for samples 1 and 2 (see Table 1). As can be seen in Fig. 1 (panels A and
B), both IQ and EI were associated with a pattern of means consistent
with a significant cubic effect (see Table 1 for statistics), as hypothe-
sized. Additionally, the intelligence type by intelligence percentile
2
Sample 1: cognitive intelligence M = 3.72, SD = 0.77; emotional in-
telligence M = 3.69, SD = 0.78; Sample 2: cognitive intelligence M = 3.64,
SD = 0.64; emotional intelligence M = 3.70, SD = 0.64.
6
Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465
interaction effect was significant for both samples 1 and 2 (see Table 1).
As can be seen in Fig. 1 (panels A and B), the greatest numerical di-
vergence between the IQ and EI rated desirability means occurred from
the 75th to the 99th intelligence percentiles. A pair of follow-up 2 × 2
factorial within-subjects ANOVAs isolated at the 90th and 99th in-
telligence percentiles identified a statistically significant interaction
across both samples 1 and 2 (see Table 1). Furthermore, for IQ, statis-
tically significant reductions in rated desirability were observed be-
tween the 90th and 99th percentiles across both samples: sample 1, t
(235) = 4.51, p < .001, g = 0.18; sample 2, t(219) = 4.31, p < .001,
g = 0.21. By contrast, for EI, the corresponding difference was not
found to be significant statistically across both samples: sample 1, t
(235) = −1.85, p = .066, g = −0.07; sample 2, t(219) = −0.98,
p = .328, g = −0.04.
3.2. Percentage reducers and reasons: IQ
To appreciate further the nature of the effects, we created scatter
(jitter) plots depicting the association between the desirability ratings
associated with 90th and 99th IQ/EI percentiles (sample 1). As can be
seen in Fig. 2, a substantial number of participants did not change their
ratings from the 90th to the 99th percentiles (observations along the
line of best fit). Furthermore, some participants increased their desir-
ability ratings (observations above the line of best fit). However, by
comparison, a larger number of observations were below the lines of
best fit, suggesting an overall reduction in desirability rating from the
90th to the 99th percentiles.
In specific numerical terms, for sample 1, 28.0% reduced, 60.2% did
not change, and 11.9% increased their rating of desirability between
the 90th and 99th IQ percentiles; and for sample 2, 9.5% reduced,
75.5% did not change, and 11.4% increased their rating of desirability
between the 90th and 99th IQ percentiles. Next, for sample 1, we ex-
amined the reasons why the people who did not respond ‘extremely
interested’ for the 99th IQ percentile (n = 165) did so. We found that
59.4% (n = 98) of the participants specified that they were concerned
that there would be compatibility issues with someone exceptionally
intelligent. By comparison, we found that 29.7% (n = 49) of those
participants (n = 165) specified that they were concerned that someone
with exceptional intelligence would be socially awkward. Finally,
10.3% (n = 17) selected both reasons and 10.9% (n = 18) did not select
either reason.
With respect to sample 2, a total of 75 participants (34.1%) reduced
their attractiveness rating for a prospective partner with elevated levels
of IQ (i.e., beyond the 75th IQ percentile). More than half (n = 43;
57.3%) of the participants who reduced their desirability rating se-
lected, “I'm worried that I would not be compatible with someone who
is exceptionally intelligent”. A somewhat smaller percentage (44.0%;
n = 33) selected, “I'm worried that someone exceptionally intelligent
would be socially awkward.” Some participants (n = 12; 16.0%) se-
lected both options. A total of 19 participants from sample 2 who re-
duced their rating of desirability beyond the 75th IQ percentile also
provided open-ended comments (k = 24) to help explain their con-
cerns. As can be seen in Table 2, on the basis of a qualitative analysis,
we identified five categories of comments: (1) arrogance (k = 7), (2)
incompatible (k = 6), (3) low EI (k = 5), (4) socially awkward (k = 3),
(5) too competitive (k = 3). Thus, the most commonly observed free-
text response (9.3% of reducers) pertained to concerns surrounding
arrogance in a person with a very high IQ. For further narrative sur-
rounding the IQ qualitative results, see the Supplementary Section.
3.3. Percentage reducers and reasons: EI
With respect to EI, for sample 1, 11.0% reduced, 67.4% did not
change, and 21.6% increased their desirability rating from the 90th to
the 99th EI percentiles. For sample 2, 2.3% reduced, 84.5% did not
change, and 22.7% increased their desirability rating from the 90th to
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465

Table 1
ANOVA results across Sample 1 and Sample 2.
F df p partial η2

Sample 1 (N = 236)
Main Effect: Intelligence Type 0.66 1, 235 0.417 0.003
Main Effect: Intelligence Percentile 282.28 1.65, 387.03 < 0.001 0.546
Cubic Effect: Intelligence Percentile 169.48 1, 235 < 0.001 0.419
Interaction: Intelligence Type by Percentile 40.60 2.52, 591.31 < 0.001 0.147
Follow-Up: 90th to 99th percentiles 30.03 1, 235 < 0.001 0.113
Follow-Up: 75th to 90th percentiles 18.23 1, 235 < 0.001 0.072

Sample 2 (N = 213)
Main Effect: Intelligence Type 1.97 1, 219 0.162 0.009
Main Effect: Intelligence Percentile 316.71 1.85, 404.35 < 0.001 0.591
Cubic Effect: Intelligence Percentile 164.59 1, 219 < 0.001 0.429
Interaction: Intelligence Type by Percentile 29.35 2.17, 475.73 < 0.001 0.118
Follow-Up: 90th to 99th percentiles 19.10 1, 219 < 0.001 0.080
Follow-Up: 75th to 90th percentiles 10.31 1, 219 < 0.001 0.045

Panel A Panel B
6.0
6.0
5.5
IQ 5.5
5.0 EI IQ
5.0
Desirability Rating

4.5 Desirability Rating EI

4.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1 10 25 50 75 90 99
1 10 25 50 75 90 99
Intelligence Percentile
Intelligence Percentile

Fig. 1. Plot of means depicting the nonlinear (cubic) trend between intelligence (emotional and cognitive) percentile and desirability rating (N = 236);
IQ = cognitive intelligence; EI = emotional intelligence; error bars represent 95% confidence intervals; panel A = general community sample (N = 236); panel
B = undergraduate university sample (N = 220).

the 99th EI percentiles.
As noted above, although we failed to identify a significant mean
difference between the 90th and 99th EI percentile mean desirability
ratings, several participants from sample 2 (n = 53; 24.1%), none-
theless, reduced their partner interest rating between the 75th and 90th
EI percentiles, or between the 90th and 99th EI percentiles.
Furthermore, all 53 participants provided open-ended responses to help
explain their reduction. As can be seen in Table 3, all of the free-text
responses (k = 67) were coded to one or more of eight categories: (1)
perceived incompatibility (k = 26), (2) constantly analyse me (k = 12),
(3) too emotions focussed (k = 8), (4) judgemental (k = 6), (5) assume
how I'm feeling (k = 5), (6) too intense (k = 5), (7) intimidating
(k = 3), and (8) boring relationship (k = 2). Thus, the two most com-
monly observed comments corresponded to the ‘perceived incompat-
ibility’ category (49.1% of reducers) and the ‘constantly analyse me’
category (22.6% of reducers). The six remaining categories were rela-
tively less commonly observed (i.e., ≤ 15%). For further narrative
surrounding the EI qualitative results, see the Supplementary Section.
3.4. Predicting desirability ratings: IQ and EI
First, with respect to sample 1, we found IQ self-assessed with the
single-item percentile indicator (M = 66.14; SD = 20.75;
skew = −0.86) correlated negatively with the 10th IQ percentile, r
(234) = −0.34, p < .001, and positively with the 90th IQ percentile, r
(234) = 0.39, p < .001, as hypothesized. Furthermore, EI self-assessed
with the single-item percentile indicator (M = 64.73; SD = 21.63;
skew = −0.83) correlated negatively with the 10th EI percentile, r
(234) = −0.24, p < .001, and positively with the 90th EI percentile, r
(234) = 0.37, p < .001, as hypothesized. Thus, people who self-as-
sessed their IQ relatively higher tended to rate less desirable a pro-
spective partner with relatively low IQ, as well as rate more desirable a
prospective partner with relatively high IQ. The same pattern emerged
for self-assessed EI, again, as hypothesized.
Next, with respect to sample 2, recall that, in addition to self-as-
sessed IQ (single item) and the Percentile Partner Interest Scale, we also
had scores from self-reported IQ (multi-item questionnaire), and task-
based measures of IQ. As can be seen in Table 4, self-assessed IQ, self-
reported IQ, and task-based IQ correlated negatively with the 10th IQ
percentile and positively with the 90th IQ percentile, as hypothesized.
We also note that self-assessed IQ and self-reported IQ correlated po-
sitively with the task-based composite measure of IQ to the same degree
(both r = 0.49). Thus, there was no evidence to suggest that the mea-
surement of self-perceptions of IQ with a percentile approach was any
better than a conventional questionnaire approach. A multiple regres-
sion structural equation model failed to identify any statistically

7
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465

Panel A Panel B

6 6

PPS EI 99th Percentile

PPS IQ 99th Percentile
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

PPS IQ 90th Percentile PPS EI 90th Percentile

Fig. 2. N = 236 (sample 1); scatter plots depicting the association between the Percentile Partner Interest Scale (PPS) desirability ratings for the 90th and 99th
percentiles (Panel A = IQ; Panel B = EI); the larger number of observations below the line of best fit especially apparent for the IQ data suggests that a greater
number of people reduced their ratings of desirability from the 90th to the 99th IQ percentiles.

Table 2 internal consistency reliability of the task-based measure of EI was so

Categories of reasons why people reduced their ratings of interest in a pro-
spective partner with an elevated IQ.
Categories k Sample response
Arrogance 7 “Belittle a partner who is not as smart as them.”
Incompatible 6 “I'm worried that they would be smarter than I am.”
Low EI 5 “I'm worried that because there is such a high level of
intelligence, his emotional intelligence … would be low.”
Socially Awkward 3 “It has something to do with social awkwardness…”
Too Competitive 3 “Im [sic] worried that intellectual debates with the
partner will end up in stalemate or become too heated.”
Note. A total of 19 participants (sample 2) provided open-ended (free text)
responses to help explain why they reduced their interest rating; the frequencies
(k) correspond to the number of participants who made such a free-text com-
ment; some people generated comments that included more than one category,
consequently, the total number of comments (k = 24) is greater than the total
number of participants (n = 19) who provided free text responses.
significant unique effects (see Supplementary Section; Fig. S2).
Additionally, with respect to sample 2, recall that we had self-assed
EI (single-item), self-reported EI (multi-item questionnaire), a task-
based measure of EI, as well as scores from the Percentile Partner
Interest Scale – EI. As can be seen in Table 5, only the self-assessed EI
indicator correlated significantly negatively and significantly positively
with the 10th and 90th EI percentiles, respectively. Finally, because the
low (i.e., 0.26), we did not interpret those results.
3.5. Ranked mate characteristics
With respect to sample 1, kindness (M = 3.03; SD = 2.23) was nu-
merically the most highly ranked mate characteristic, based on the
Buss/Barnes Partner Preference Scale (see supplementary section; Fig.
S3, panel A). The ‘emotionally intelligent’ (M = 4.34; SD = 2.58) and
‘cognitively intelligent’ mate (M = 4.72; SD = 3.07) characteristics
were the second and third most highly ranked characteristics, nu-
merically (see Table S5 for all descriptive statistics). A robust regres-
sion-based paired t-test of the difference between the ‘emotionally in-
telligent’ and ‘cognitively intelligent’ mean ranks was significant
statistically, ΔM = −0.38, 95%CI: −0.74/−0.02, suggesting that EI
was ranked more desirable than IQ, on average (Cohen's d = −0.13).
We note that the ‘emotionally intelligent’ and ‘cognitively intelligent’
ranks were also correlated positively (Spearman r = 0.27, p < .001),
suggesting some tendency for higher EI ranks to be associated with
higher IQ ranks, although the correlation was not so large as to suggest
the two traits were viewed very similarly. Similar results were reported
for sample 2 (see supplementary section; Table S6 and Fig. S3, panel B).

Table 3
Categories of reasons why people reduced their ratings of interest in a prospective partner with an elevated EI.
Categories k Sample response

Perceived incompatibility 26 “I don't think i [sic] would be very compatible with someone too emotionally intelligent as I am not extremely emotionally intelligent”
Constantly analyse me 12 “I would not want them to constantly analyse my emotions and read into them.”
Too emotions focussed 8 “…I feel that the relationship would be too challenging and that a lot of the relationship would be focused on how we are feeling emotionally.”
Judgemental 6 “I'm worried they'd be … very critical of me”
Assume how I'm feeling 5 “I would not want to be with someone who never needed to ask how I was feeling and just assumed they knew.”
Too intense 5 “Someone who is super emotionally intelligent could get intense”
Intimidating 3 “intimidated by someones [sic] emotional intelligence”
Boring relationship 2 “Relationship would most likely end up boring or uninteresting.”

Note. A total of 53 participants (sample 2) provided open-ended (free text) responses to help explain why they reduced their interest rating; the frequencies (k)
correspond to the number of participants who made such a free-text comment; some people generated comments that included more than one category, consequently,
the total number of comments (k = 67) is greater than the total number of participants (n = 53) who provided free text responses.

8
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465

Table 4
Bivariate correlations between latent and observed variables included in the structural equation model: Cognitive intelligence.
SAIQ SRIQ TBIQ PPSIQ-10th PPSIQ-90th M SD skew

SAIQ 1.0 66.24 13.56 −0.18

SRIQ 0.58 1.0 3.59 0.49 0.07
TBIQ 0.49 0.49 1.0 0.00 0.77 −0.03
PPSIQ-10th −0.17 −0.15 −0.24 1.0 2.74 1.24 0.28
PPSIQ-90th 0.10 0.13 0.21 −0.34 1.0 4.53 1.09 −0.84

Note. N = 220; all correlations in bold were significant statistically (p < .05); SAIQ = self-assessed cognitive intelligence; SRIQ = self-reported cognitive in-
telligence; TBIQ = task-based cognitive intelligence; PPSIQ = Partner Preference Scale – Cognitive Intelligence; SAIQ, SRIQ and TBIQ were specified as latent
variables.

Table 5 level of IQ. Such comments are consistent with the assortative mating
Bivariate correlations between latent and observed variables. theory for IQ, that is, people tend to select partners with compatible
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. M SD skew levels of IQ (Gignac & Zajenkowski, 2019; Jonason et al., 2019). We
also note that our qualitative results are not supportive of the notion
1. SAEI 1.0 67.64 16.36 −0.73 that the typical person is satisfied with a moderate level of IQ in a
2. SREI 0.60 1.0 4.77 0.56 −0.12
partner, on the basis of the suggestion that such a level of intelligence
3. TBEI 0.17 0.31 1.0 13.48 1.96 −0.50
4. PPSEI-10th −0.14 −0.11 0.02 1.0 2.45 1.21 0.47
may be regarded as sufficient to solve daily life problems (Li, Bailey,
5. PPSEI-90th 0.30 0.36 0.05 −0.25 1.0 4.92 0.93 −1.17 Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002).
Additionally, across both samples, a non-negligible percentage of
Note. N = 220; all correlations in bold were significant statistically (p < .05); the responders (≈ 40%) expressed concerns that an exceptionally in-
SAEI = self-assessed emotional intelligence; SREI = self-reported emotional telligent person would be more likely to struggle with interpersonal
intelligence; TBEI = task-based emotional intelligence; PPSEI = Partner skills. Such a result is consistent with the stereotype that exceptionally
Preference Scale – Emotional Intelligence; SAEI, SREI and TBEI were specified
intelligent/gifted people have interpersonal difficulties (França-Freitas
as latent variables.
et al., 2014; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011). It is interesting that our
sample 2 was composed of university students and the stereotype was,
4. Discussion
nonetheless, clearly observed, as 34% (n = 75) of the sample expressed
concerns about interpersonal skills (e.g., socially awkward; low EI) with
Across both samples, we replicated the threshold effect for IQ, such
respect to the exceptionally intelligent. Such a result is essentially
that a mean reduction in rated desirability was observed from the 90th
consistent with Rodríguez-Nieto et al. (2019) who found that 25% of
to the 99th IQ percentiles. By contrast, although a threshold effect was
university students expressed the view that gifted people are more
observed for EI, as well, a mean reduction was not observed across the
likely to have socioemotional problems.
90th to the 99th EI percentiles. On the basis of a qualitative analysis, we
Consequently, we believe several respondents may have made a
found that concerns for IQ compatibility were the most frequently
trade-off, such that they prioritized the perceived social costs of ex-
specified, followed by interpersonal skill concerns. Furthermore, we
ceptional IQ over the biological benefits of IQ, even though the biolo-
found that self-assessed and objective IQ scores correlated positively
gical and socio-economic benefits of IQ extend across the full spectrum
with desirability ratings for a prospective partner with an IQ at the 90th
of IQ (Hagenaars et al., 2016; Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). Such a trade-
percentile, whereas only self-assessed EI scores correlated positively
off may be unnecessary, if the notion that exceptional levels of IQ are
and significantly with the 90th EI percentile desirability ratings.
associated with inter-personal difficulties is only a stereotype (Baudson,
Finally, across both samples, ‘emotionally intelligent’ was ranked sta-
2016). Thus, it would be important to determine the association be-
tistically significantly higher (more desirable) than ‘cognitively in-
tween objective IQ and objective interpersonal skills in future research.
telligent’. We discuss each of these key results below.

4.2. EI threshold effect and reasons

4.1. IQ threshold effect and reasons
Although IQ has been found to be consistently one of the most
highly ranked characteristics in a potential partner (Buss et al., 1990;
Buss & Barnes, 1986; Goodwin & Tinker, 2002), the association be-
tween degree of desirability and level of IQ was found to correspond to
a threshold effect in two studies (Gignac et al., 2018; Gignac &
Starbuck, 2019). Consistent with these two previous studies, a small
(Cohen, 1992) but statistically significant reduction in mean rated de-
sirability of a prospective partner was observed from the 90th to the
99th IQ percentiles, across both samples in this investigation. Thus, we
confirmed further the threshold effect of IQ, with respect to rated
partner attractiveness, i.e., an IQ of approximately 120 appears to be
the most attractive in a prospective partner, on average.
A unique contribution associated with this investigation is that we
uncovered why some participants did not rate the 99th IQ percentile as
the most attractive. Specifically, we found that more than half of the
respondents (≈ 60%) expressed concerns relevant to intellectual
compatibility. Some participants stated they were concerned that they
would have different interests to an exceptionally intelligent person, as
well as have difficulty communicating with a partner with a very high
The current study is the first to specifically examine what level of EI
is rated the most attractive in a prospective partner. Across both sam-
ples, we observed a threshold effect, similar to IQ, with attraction
peaking at the 90th EI percentile. Thus, the results of our investigation
provide more detailed insight into the degree to which EI is attractive,
in comparison to Schutte et al. (2001) who found that participants
expected to have greater relationship satisfaction with someone who
could recognise and manage emotions, in comparison to a partner who
could not.
Unlike IQ, however, our participants were, on average, essentially
equally interested in a potential partner who was described as being
more emotionally intelligent than 90% and 99% of the population;
thus, rated desirability essentially peaked at the 90th percentile, sug-
gesting a threshold effect. This suggests that a high level of EI, rather
than an exceptional level, is sufficient to elicit the maximum possible
mean level of rated attraction from others.
Gignac and Starbuck (2019) found that physical attractiveness and
kindness yielded similar threshold effects to that observed for EI, i.e., no
significant mean change from the 90th to the 99th percentiles. Thus, on
the basis of the results of this investigation, as well as those of Gignac

9
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis
et al. (2018); Gignac and Zajenkowski (2019), it would appear that
exceptional levels of several attributes yield, on average, essentially no
meaningful incremental benefits with respect to the perception of
prospective partner desirability, even though several of those char-
acteristics produce greater socio-economic benefits across the whole
spectrum of the characteristic (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006; Patel &
Wolfe, 2019).
Although there was no significant difference between the mean
partner interest ratings between potential partners with EI levels at the
90th and 99th percentiles, some participants did reduce the their de-
sirability ratings from the 90th to the 99th EI percentiles. In a manner
similar to IQ, perceived incompatibility was the most common reason
for reducing ratings of interest for the exceptionally emotionally in-
telligent. More specifically, some participants were worried the dis-
parity in EI between themselves and the partner would result in an
inability to relate to them, that they would be intimidated by someone
with high EI, or that a partner high in EI would be judgemental of them.
These results are consistent with the qualitative results we obtained for
IQ, underscoring the compatibility theory of mate selection (Huston &
Houts, 1998).
Also consistent with the compatibility theory, in this context, is that
people tend to overestimate their IQ and EI, when measured on a self-
assessed percentile continuum. Specifically, on average, people tend to
self-report their IQ and EI at between somewhere equal to 112 to 120
on the conventional IQ scale (Petrides & Furnham, 2000), which cor-
responds to somewhere between the 80th and 90th percentiles. Corre-
spondingly, for both IQ and EI, the mean rated desirability level for a
prospective partner peaked at approximately the 90th percentile for
both IQ and EI, in this investigation.
4.3. Predictors of IQ and EI desirability
We found that both self-assessed IQ and objectively measured IQ
correlated negatively with desirability ratings for a relatively less in-
telligent prospective partner (10th IQ percentile) and positively for a
relatively more intelligent prospective partner (90th IQ percentile). The
true score correlations were in the relatively small to typical range for
individual differences research (Gignac & Szodorai, 2016).
Although a substantial amount of research has established the as-
sortative mating for IQ effect (Bouchard & McGue, 1981), how precisely
the effect arises remains to be determined (Plomin & Deary, 2015).
Some research suggests that assortative mating for IQ may be caused by
a third variable: educational propinquity (Phillips, Fulker, Carey, &
Nagoshi, 1988). However, on the basis of a close examination, Stevens
(1991) found that assortative mating for education (and, by inference,
IQ) likely does not arise through educational propinquity. Corre-
spondingly, our results suggest that people have some awareness of
their own level of objective IQ (r ≈ 0.50), and that people who rate
their IQ relatively higher tend to find more desirable a prospective
partner with a higher IQ. Consequently, our results suggest that assor-
tative mating for IQ may arise, at least in part, via active assortment,
i.e., direct effects that arise through individual differences in mating
preferences (Watson et al., 2004).
With respect to EI, our measure of objective EI yielded internal
consistency reliability so low (α = 0.26) as to be unusable. However,
we found that our measure of self-reported EI correlated significantly
and positively with ratings of desirability for a prospective partner with
a high level of EI (90th percentile). The true score correlation was re-
latively large (Gignac & Szodorai, 2016). Such a result suggests the
possibility for active assortment for EI. However, to date, there is only a
small amount of research on the assortative mating for EI and the re-
sults are inconsistent (Schröder-Abé & Schütz, 2011; Śmieja & Stolarski,
2018; Zeidner & Kaluda, 2008). More high quality research in this area
is encouraged, particularly considering the interpersonal and in-
trapersonal benefits associated with EI and relationship satisfaction
(Amitay & Mongrain, 2007; Schröder-Abé & Schütz, 2011).
10
Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465
4.4. Which is more desirable, IQ or EI?
Although Schutte et al. (2001) found that people expected to enjoy a
romantic relationship with someone who could recognise and manage
emotions more than someone who could not, our results offer a clearer
indication of the attractiveness of EI. Specifically, we found that EI was
the second most desirable trait in a potential partner, behind only ‘kind
and understanding’, on the basis of a modified Buss/Barnes Partner
Preference Scale (Buss & Barnes, 1986). In previous research, the
second most highly ranked characteristic in a partner has been reported
consistently to be ‘exciting personality’ or ‘intelligent’ (Buss et al., 1990;
Gignac et al., 2018). Thus, by distinguishing EI from IQ, our in-
vestigation uncovered more detailed insights into how people perceive
the value of intelligence, emotional and cognitive, with respect to a
potential partner: both are valued relatively highly, but EI more so.
Our results may be considered consistent with the empirical findings
that suggest that EI is associated positively with partner closeness,
commitment, relationship success and relationship satisfaction
(Apostolou et al., 2019; Schröder-Abé & Schütz, 2011). Furthermore, EI
has been found to predict job performance uniquely, i.e., independently
of the effects of personality and IQ (Joseph et al., 2015; O'Boyle Jr et al.,
2011), suggesting potential socio-economic benefits. Thus, on average,
our results suggest that people are likely aware of these potential
benefits, both relationship-related and socio-economic, when con-
sidering a relationship with someone relatively high in EI. By com-
parison, IQ has not been found to correlate positively with relationship
satisfaction (Gignac & Zajenkowski, 2019). Consequently, on average,
people may have ranked IQ somewhat lower than EI, as there is some
awareness among adults that IQ offers fewer relationship-related ben-
efits, in comparison to EI.
We note that, although both EI and IQ were ranked relatively
highly, people did not view EI and IQ as essentially the same char-
acteristic. Based on supplementary analyses, the EI and IQ ranks cor-
related (Spearman) at only r(234) = 0.27 (p < .001) and r
(211) = 0.11 (p = .111), in samples 1 and 2, respectively.
Correspondingly, based on individual differences research, EI and IQ
have been reported to correlate positively only relatively weakly
(r < 0.30; O'Boyle Jr et al., 2011; van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).
Thus, from both an individual differences in ability perspective, as well
as an individual differences in perceived partner characteristic desir-
ability perspective, IQ and EI are substantially different constructs.
4.5. Limitations
Although this investigation was associated with several strengths,
there were also several limitations. First, we are unsure of the number
of Hispanics who completed the survey in sample 1, as such information
was not collected. Additionally, MTurk workers may be especially test-
wise participants. Consequently, the degree to which our sample 1 re-
sults truly generalise to the US population may be questioned.
Furthermore, the second sample consisted entirely of first year under-
graduate students, a population known to be associated with range
restriction in IQ (Gignac et al., 2004; Osmon & Jackson, 2002). Thus,
the correlations between objective intelligence and the desirability
ratings reported in this investigation are likely underestimates. Conse-
quently, a future study with an ethnically diverse, general community
sample, and objective measures of IQ, would be useful.
We also acknowledge that the manner in which the Partner
Percentile Interest Scales measured the participants' responses may
have impacted the results. Specifically, although the participants did
not have to know what a percentile was in order to respond to the items
on the scale, it is possible that focussing on frequencies (e.g., 1 out of
100), rather than percentages (“Smarter than 99% of the population.”),
may yield more valid participant responses. Additionally, the percen-
tiles associated with the scale increase in a non-linear manner (see X-
axes Fig. 1), which may have impacted the results. Ultimately, it would
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis
be useful to try to replicate the results with alternative approaches to
measuring people's desirability ratings.
Additionally, we did not measure relationship status in this in-
vestigation. Instead, we asked participants to imagine they were single,
if they were not, when rating the desirability of the prospective partner.
There is research to suggest that single people, on average, rate pro-
spective partners more positively (Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma,
1990). Additionally, some work suggests that people in a relationship
are less motivated to provide valid ratings of desirability for a pro-
spective partner (Lydon, 2010). Thus, the results reported in this in-
vestigation may be moderated by relationship status. Future research to
evaluate this possibility is indicated. Correspondingly, we also ac-
knowledge that most people would not be expected to have a large
amount of experience with people who are exceptionally intelligent;
consequently, it may have been difficult for many of our participants to
provide well considered ratings for a person with an IQ at the 99th
percentile, for example.
Furthermore, in study 2, the open-ended responses were captured
after the participants responded to the multiple-choice item to help
explain why they reduced their ratings of desirability. It is possible that
other reasons were not captured, as some participants may have felt
that selecting one of the options was a sufficient explanation. Future
research should first present participants with a fully open-ended
question and then follow-up with the multiple-choice item on the next
screen.
Additionally, the study design and analyses undertaken in this in-
vestigation isolated each characteristic. Although such an approach
may have advantages that facilitate clear interpretations of results, it is
a limitation, as people, in practice, likely consider a multitude of fac-
tors, simultaneously, when considering the attractiveness of a pro-
spective partner (Luo & Klohnen, 2005), factors that may also interact
with each other. For example, on the basis of the qualitative comments,
some participants expressed concerns that a prospective partner very
high in IQ would be relatively lower in EI. Thus, we naturally ac-
knowledge that the manner in which the process of mate attraction and
selection occurs in nature is much more complex than that suggested by
the research design we employed in this investigation. Correspondingly,
we acknowledge that we measured ratings of interest, not actual be-
haviour. Consequently, it remains to be determined the degree to which
people who rate intelligence highly actually make dating/mating de-
cisions on the basis of those reported preferences.
Finally, we did not report sex differences in this investigation. On
the basis of the male and female mean ranks reported for the Buss/
Barnes Partner Preference Scale in a large-scale international in-
vestigation (Buss et al., 1990), we estimated a correlation of 0.93 be-
tween the male and female mean ranks. Thus, although some differ-
ences between males and females may exist, they are probably not large
(see Supplementary Section). Nonetheless, we encourage sex differ-
ences (and sexual orientation) research in this area, in order to de-
termine whether the effects reported, here, were moderated by sex.
5. Conclusion
Elevated levels of IQ and EI are highly valued characteristics in a
prospective partner, although EI somewhat more than IQ. Reasons for
the mean reduction in desirability of a prospective partner with ex-
ceptional levels of IQ revolve primarily around issues of compatibility,
and, secondarily, concerns for perceived social skill difficulties. It is
arguably important to determine conclusively whether there is a non-
linear association between IQ and social skills/EI, as some people may
be making an unnecessary trade-off, in the context of mate selection.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101465.
11
Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465
References
Allen, V. D., Weissman, A., Hellwig, S., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2014).
Development of the situational test of emotional understanding–brief (STEU-B) using
item response theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 3–7.
Amitay, O. A., & Mongrain, M. (2007). From emotional intelligence to intelligent choice
of partner. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(4), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.
3200/SOCP.147.4.325-344.
Apostolou, M., Paphiti, C., Neza, E., Damianou, M., & Georgiadou, P. (2019). Mating
performance: Exploring emotional intelligence, the dark triad, Jealousy and
Attachment Effects. Journal of Relationships Research, 10.
Austin, E. J. (2010). Measurement of ability emotional intelligence: Results for two new
tests. British Journal of Psychology, 101(3), 563–578.
Baudson, T. G. (2016). The mad genius stereotype: Still alive and well. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00368.
Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (1981). Familial studies of intelligence: A review. Science,
212(4498), 1055–1059.
Brauer, D. V., & DePaulo, B. M. (1980). Similarities between friends in their under-
standing of nonverbal cues. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5(1), 64–68. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF00987057.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new
source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6(1), 3–5.
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., ...
Ekehammar, B. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37
cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(1), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022190211001.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.50.3.559.
Buss, D. M., & Schmidt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary per-
spective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender
differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal
Relationships, 9(3), 271–278.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cooper, R. A., & Weekes, A. J. (1983). Data, models and statistical analyses. Totowa, NJ:
Barnes & Noble.
Der, G., Batty, G. D., & Deary, I. J. (2009). The association between IQ in adolescence and
a range of health outcomes at 40 in the 1979 US National Longitudinal Study of
Youth. Intelligence, 37(6), 573–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.12.002.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL:
Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Zabaneh, M. L. P. D., Del Prette, A., & Del Prette, Z. A. P. (2014). Social skills of gifted and
talented children. Estudos de Psicologia. Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), 19(4),
288–295.
Furnham, A. (2001). Self-estimates of intelligence: Culture and gender difference in self
and other estimates of both general (g) and multiple intelligences. Personality and
Individual Differences, 31(8), 1381–1405.
Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Personality and intelligence:
Gender, the big five, self-estimated and psychometric intelligence. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(1), 11–24.
Gignac, G. E. (2010a). On a nomenclature for emotional intelligence research. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.
2010.01212.x.
Gignac, G. (2010b). Seven-factor model of emotional intelligence as measured by Genos
EI: A confirmatory factor analytic investigation based on self-and rater-report data.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 309–316.
Gignac, G. E. (2018). In V. Zeigler-Hill, & T. Shackelford (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of
personality and individual differences. (pp. 439–464). Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE.
Gignac, G. E. (2019). How2statsbook (Online Edition 1.0). Perth, Australia: Author. www.
how2statsbook.com.
Gignac, G. E., Darbyshire, J., & Ooi, M. (2018). Some people are attracted sexually to
intelligence: A psychometric evaluation of sapiosexuality. Intelligence, 66, 98–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.11.009.
Gignac, G. E., Shankaralingam, M., Walker, K., & Kilpatrick, P. (2016). Short-term
memory for faces relates to general intelligence moderately. Intelligence, 57, 96–104
10.1016/j.intell.2016.05.001.
Gignac, G. E., & Starbuck, C. L. (2019). Exceptional intelligence and easygoingness may
hurt your prospects: Threshold effects for rated mate characteristics. British Journal of
Psychology, 110(1), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12342.
Gignac, G. E., Stough, C., & Loukomitis, S. (2004). Openness, intelligence, and self-report
intelligence. Intelligence, 32(2), 133–143.
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences
researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78.
Gignac, G. E., & Zajenkowski, M. (2019). People tend to overestimate their romantic
partner's intelligence even more than their own. Intelligence, 73, 41–51. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.01.004.
Goodwin, R., & Tinker, M. (2002). Value priorities and preferences for a relationship
partner. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(8), 1339–1349. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0191-8869(01)00122-2.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). g: Highly general and highly practical. In R. J. Sternberg, & E. L.
Grigorenko (Eds.). The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 331–380).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hagenaars, S. P., Harris, S. E., Davies, G., Hill, W. D., Liewald, D. C., Ritchie, S. J., ...
G.E. Gignac and Z.M.V. Callis
Group, C. C. P (2016). Shared genetic aetiology between cognitive functions and
physical and mental health in UK Biobank (N= 112 151) and 24 GWAS consortia.
Molecular Psychiatry, 21(11), 1624. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.225.
Hedberg, E. C., & Ayers, S. (2015). The power of a paired t-test with a covariate. Social
Science Research, 50, 277–291.
Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier labelling.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 1147–1149. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01621459.1987.10478551.
Huston, T., & Houts, R. (1998). The psychological infrastructure of courtship and mar-
riage: The role of personality and compatibility in romantic relationships. In T.
Bradbury (Ed.). The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 114–151). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Jonason, P. K., Marsh, K., Dib, O., Plush, D., Doszpot, M., Fung, E., ... Di Pietro, K. (2019).
Is smart sexy? Examining the role of relative intelligence in mate preferences.
Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2018.11.009.
Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O'Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does self-reported
emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of
mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 298–342.
van Leeuwen, M., Van Den Berg, S. M., & Boomsma, D. I. (2008). A twin-family study of
general IQ. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.lindif.2007.04.006.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The necessities and
luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82(6), 947. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947.
Libbrecht, N., & Lievens, F. (2012). Validity evidence for the situational judgment test
paradigm in emotional intelligence measurement. International Journal of Psychology,
47(6), 438–447.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35
years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2006.00019.x.
Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A
couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2),
304–326.
Lydon, J. E. (2010). How to forego forbidden fruit: The regulation of attractive alter-
natives as a commitment mechanism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4,
635–644.
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional in-
telligence: Theory and data. Emotions, 8(4), 540–551.
Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N. (1988). Assortative mating from psychometric characteristics. In
C. G. N. Mascie-Taylor, & A. J. Boyce (Eds.). Human mating patterns (pp. 62–82).
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Mascie-Taylor, C. N. (1989). Spouse similarity for IQ and personality and convergence.
Behavior Genetics, 19(2), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065906.
McIntosh, D. E., Dixon, F. A., & Pierson, E. E. (2005). Use of intelligence tests in the
identification of giftedness. In D. P. Flanagan, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.). Contemporary
intellectual assessment (pp. 504–520). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
O'Boyle, E. H., Jr., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011).
The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788–818.
Osmon, D. C., & Jackson, R. (2002). Inspection time and IQ: Fluid or perceptual aspects of
intelligence? Intelligence, 30(2), 119–127.
Palmer, B. R., Stough, C., Hamer, R., & Gignac, G. E. (2009). Genos emotional intelligence
inventory. In C. Stough, D. Saklofske, & J. D. Parker (Eds.). Advances in the mea-
surement of emotional intelligence (pp. 103–118). New York: Springer.
Patel, P. C., & Wolfe, M. T. (2019). In the eye of the beholder? The returns to beauty and
IQ for the self-employed. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sej.1323 Advance online publication.
Petrides, K. V. (2011). Ability and trait emotional intelligence. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic,
A. Furnham, & S. von Stumm (Eds.). The Blackwell-Wiley handbook of individual dif-
ferences (pp. 656–678). New York: Wiley.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). Gender differences in measured and self-estimated
trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles, 42(5–6), 449–461.
Phillips, K., Fulker, D. W., Carey, G., & Nagoshi, C. T. (1988). Direct marital assortment
for cognitive and personality variables. Behavior Genetics, 18(3), 347–356.
Pintner, R. (1923). Intelligence testing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Plomin, R., & Deary, I. J. (2015). Genetics and intelligence differences: Five special
findings. Molecular Psychiatry, 20(1), 98.
Plomin, R., & von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews
Genetics, 19(3), 148–159.
Prokosch, M. D., Yeo, R. A., & Miller, G. F. (2005). Intelligence tests with higher g-
loadings show higher correlations with body symmetry: Evidence for a general fitness
12
Intelligence 81 (2020) 101465
factor mediated by developmental stability. Intelligence, 33(2), 203–213. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.07.007.
Raven, J. C. (1966). Advanced progressive matrices. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Reitan, R. M. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain
damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8(3), 271–276.
Rodríguez-Nieto, M. C., Sánchez-González, A. S., & Sánchez-Miranda, M. P. (2019). How
are the gifted? Point of view of university students. Educational Process: International
Journal, 8(2), 123.
van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic in-
vestigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65(1), 71–95.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG.
Salthouse, T. A., Toth, J., Daniels, K., Parks, C., Pak, R., Wolbrette, M., & Hocking, K. J.
(2000). Effects of aging on efficiency of task switching in a variant of the trail making
test. Neuropsychology, 14(1), 102–111.
Schlegel, K., Fontaine, J. R., & Scherer, K. R. (2017). The Nomological network of emotion
recognition ability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 1–12.
Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2011). Walking in each other's shoes: Perspective taking
mediates effects of emotional intelligence on relationship quality. European Journal of
Personality, 25(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.818.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., ...
Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 141(4), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224540109600569.
Schütz, A., & Koydemir, S. (2018). Emotional intelligence: What it is, how it can be
measured and increased and whether it makes us successful and happy. In T. Todd
Shackelford, & V. Zeigler-Hill (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of personality and individual
differences (pp. 397–423). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attrac-
tiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1192–1201.
Śmieja, M., & Stolarski, M. (2018). Assortative mating for emotional intelligence. Current
Psychology, 37(1), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9501-8.
Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People's conceptions
of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1), 37–55.
Stevens, G. (1991). Propinquity and educational homogamy. Sociological Forum, 6(4),
715–726.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.
von Stumm, S. (2014). Intelligence, gender, and assessment method affect the accuracy of
self-estimated intelligence. British Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 243–253.
Swami, V., Furnham, A., & Zilkha, S. (2009). Estimates of self, parental, and partner
multiple intelligence and their relationship with personality, values, and demo-
graphic variables: A study in Britain and France. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,
12(2), 528–539.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
United States Census Bureau (2019). Educational attainment in the United States: 2018.
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/education-
attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html.
Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Nus Simms, E., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004).
Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed cou-
ples. Journal of Personality, 72(5), 1029–1068.
Wilson, G., & Cousins, J. (2003). Partner similarity and relationship satisfaction:
Development of a compatibility quotient. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18(2),
161–170.
Zabaneh, D., Krapohl, E., Gaspar, H. A., Curtis, C., Lee, S. H., & Lubinski, D. (2018). A
genome-wide association study for extremely high intelligence. Molecular Psychiatry,
23(5), 1226–1232.
Zagorsky, J. L. (2007). Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth,
income and financial distress. Intelligence, 35(5), 489–501.
Zarch, Z. N., Marashi, S. M., & Raji, H. (2014). The relationship between emotional in-
telligence and marital satisfaction: 10-year outcome of partners from three different
economic levels. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 9(4), 188. Retrieved from https://
search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/docview/1640731647?
accountid=14681.
Zeidner, M., & Kaluda, I. (2008). Romantic love: What's emotional intelligence (EI) got to
do with it? Personality and Individual Differences, 44(8), 1684–1695. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.018.
Zeidner, M., & Shani-Zinovich, I. (2011). Do academically gifted and nongifted students
differ on the Big-Five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 566–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2011.05.007.