Chapter 2

Cognitive Ability and Personality Domains

CHAPTER SUMMARY

1. Cognitive ability
   1. Intelligence is the ability to grasp information and handle complexity. The many specific manifestations of intelligence can be organized into a hierarchy of cognitive ability dimensions.
   2. General mental ability is one of, if not the most, potent predictors of diverse, important life outcomes (e.g., longevity, work accomplishments, wealth creation, mental health).
   3. We leverage an expanded taxonomy of cognitive abilities to organize high-resolution meta-analyses according to ability constructs, rather than just scale/measure names.
2. Personality
   1. Personality summarizes the typical ways individuals act, feel, desire, and think. These tendencies can be organized into a hierarchy of traits.
   2. Personality is a pervasive predictor of important life outcomes (e.g., longevity, job performance, athletic achievement, educational attainment, and creative output).
   3. We leverage an expanded taxonomy of personality traits to organize high-resolution meta-analyses according to trait constructs rather than personality scale names.
   4. The personality taxonomy used to organize results encapsulates the Big Five, meta-traits, aspects, facets, and compound traits.

To fully understand the results, theory, and implications of the present volume, it is critical to have a basic understanding of intelligence and personality. We provide very brief overviews of each domain and its structure below. Those seeking a fuller understanding should consult Stanek and Ones (2018) as well as the works referenced therein.

What is Intelligence?

In the pantheon of psychological individual differences, cognitive ability1 occupies an elevated position (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). Cognitive ability does not simply refer to “book smarts” or “school learning.” Instead, it refers to a diverse set of hierarchically arranged abilities that index the capacity of an individual’s brain decipher information to navigate various forms of complexity effectively, whether that complexity is recalling information from short-term memory, processing a visual image, reproducing a learned fact, extrapolating a pattern, reasoning inductively or deductively, perceiving similarities and differences, or any other complexities. General mental ability (g) is a very broad construct that “involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.” (Gottfredson, 1997b, p. 13). In this book, the term “cognitive ability” refers to the hierarchy of interrelated abilities with a general mental ability factor (g) at the apex (Carroll, 1993; Schneider & McGrew, 2012; Spearman, 1904). We view general mental ability as the manifestation of causal connections between specific abilities (e.g., high fluid abilities generating larger volumes of acquired knowledge) as well as common factors underlying brain development (e.g., neural connectivity).

In the last 100 years, scientific research has established cognitive ability as a key factor in educational success (e.g., Jensen, 1993; Kuncel et al., 2004; Kuncel & Hezlett, 2007), occupational success (e.g., Dilchert, 2018; Ones et al., 2016), career success (e.g., Judge et al., 1999; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004), socio-economic success (e.g., Kuncel et al., 2010; Strenze, 2007), exceptional attainments (e.g., Lubinski et al., 2001), mental health (e.g., Hatch et al., 2007), and physical health (e.g., Gottfredson & Deary, 2004), among other important behaviors and outcomes. In characterizing general mental ability, Gottfredson noted, “no specific ability, personality trait, social advantage, or fund of experience has been identified that can compensate for mental powers too weak to lift a task’s cognitive load” (Gottfredson, 2016, p. 214). Indeed, the measurement of cognitive ability has been hailed “as the most practical contribution made to humanity by all of psychology” (R. D. Roberts et al., 2004, p. 333). From our theoretical perspective (see Chapter 6), intelligence involves using information to know what to preserve and what to evolve to maximize the probability of achieving goals in given environments.

A Contemporary Taxonomy of Cognitive Abilities

A major purpose of the research presented in this volume is to describe, more fully and comprehensively than ever before, cognitive abilities’ relations with personality traits, expanding knowledge of their nomological networks, and thereby contributing to understanding of the mechanisms that determine individual success/failure in many life domains.

To do this systematically and as comprehensively as possible, we leveraged a contemporary taxonomy of cognitive abilities (as well as a contemporary taxonomy of personality traits as noted below). Indeed, for over 100 years, numerous cognitive abilities have been recognized,2 and their structure and organization have been a persistent focus of research (e.g., Carroll, 1993; Ekstrom et al., 1976). One of the most important discoveries in the study of psychological individual differences was the recognition that all cognitive abilities are correlated, revealing a general cognitive ability factor (i.e., general mental ability, or g) at the apex of the hierarchy of more specific cognitive abilities (Carroll, 1993; Spearman, 1904).

Cattell (1957, 1963) identified an important distinction between the dimensions below general mental ability — fluid ability and crystallized ability — and he put forward the investment theory of intelligence to explain their differences. Fluid abilities are non-invested abilities, whereas crystallized abilities are invested abilities. All acquired knowledge constructs, from the most general verbal abilities to the most narrow domain-specific abilities, are included in the latter category.

The next significant contribution to the structure of cognitive abilities was the result of Carroll’s (1993) intensive study of more than 460 cognitive ability correlation matrices. His resulting three-stratum model included 69 narrow (i.e., specific) abilities (e.g., closure flexibility) in the first stratum, eight group dimensions (i.e., primary abilities such as broad visual perception) in the second stratum, and a general factor of cognitive ability, g, in the third stratum at the apex of the hierarchy. Carroll’s Three-Stratum Model of cognitive abilities integrated and built on Cattell and Horn’s earlier conceptualizations. The combined model is referred to as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of cognitive abilities (McGrew, 1997, 2005, 2009). In the past two decades, refinements to the CHC model have resulted in additional abilities being added (Schneider & McGrew, 2012) and other abilities being distinguished from each other (e.g., learning efficiency and retrieval fluency3 as two major sub-dimensions of long term storage & retrieval [Jewsbury et al., 2016]).

In a recent publication, we updated the CHC model (McGrew, 2009). Our modifications to Schneider and McGrew’s (2012) CHC model were primarily in hierarchical representations of the primary ability constructs, recognizing that there are currently at least five levels of cognitive constructs that can be reflected in the hierarchy (Stanek & Ones, 2018). While these levels of distinction are meaningful, we simultaneously acknowledge that general mental ability accounts for about 50% percent of the common variance among broad cognitive ability test batteries (Lubinski, 2004), and that all cognitive abilities tap into this general factor in varying degrees. We refer to this updated CHC conceptualization as the Unified CHC cognitive abilities taxonomy (Stanek & Ones, 2018).

As seen in Figure 1, specific abilities are hierarchically organized below their superordinate constructs. That is, superordinate primary abilities provide general boundaries that are further refined in subordinate specific abilities. The lateral organization of the figure is from fluid ability on the left to acquired/crystallized abilities on the right. The figure also indicates primary ability dimensions, organized according to brain function (grouped within shaded boxes) and conceptual relations (grouped within dashed-line boxes). Memory, speed, and invested abilities (i.e., acquired knowledge) constitute three distinct areas of organization, according to brain function. Multiple primary and specific abilities are included in each of these. For example, the speed cluster includes abilities related to processing speed as well as reaction and decision speed primary abilities. Primary abilities can also be grouped conceptually into domain independent and domain specific clusters. Domain independent abilities are general capacities such as memory constructs and fluid abilities. Whereas domain specific abilities are more related to specific sensory-motor systems (e.g., visual processing and auditory processing).4 Descriptions of each cognitive ability construct in the Unified CHC, reproduced from Stanek and Ones (2018), are provided in Appendix A.

The Unified CHC taxonomy offers a clear point of view for understanding the structure and organization of cognitive abilities, but the Stanek and Ones (2018) compendium, linking thousands of measures to these constructs, is perhaps even more consequential. Taxonomies provide meaningful schemes for grouping psychological constructs, but researchers often interpret variables differently, which leads to disparate measures being used to assess the “same” trait. Our compendia reduce this risk and allow users to easily identify measures of each trait. The most recent version of this compendium is provided at http://stanek.workpsy.ch/cognitive-ability-map/cognitive-ability-test-compendium/, and the version used for this book is provided in Appendix B of the online supplementary materials of this book.

In an empirical test of the Unified CHC taxonomy and its associated compendium, Kostal (2018) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of cognitive ability intercorrelations based on data from over 1,000 studies. His results provided support for the Stanek and Ones compendium’s classification of cognitive ability tests into cognitive ability constructs as well as for the basic distinctions among major Unified CHC taxonomy ability dimensions.

In studying cognitive ability-personality relations, the research in this volume focuses on 97 cognitive ability constructs that were measured in studies contributing to our meta-analyses (i.e., personality correlates were reported for 97 abilities in empirical research). These abilities are part of the Unified CHC cognitive ability hierarchy described above.

Figure 1. Unified CHC cognitive abilities taxonomy.

Note. See Appendix A for construct definitions. Shaded boxes group abilities invoking similar brain functions. Dashed lines group abilities that are conceptually related.

What is Personality?

Personality is a set of enduring tendencies to act, feel, desire, and think in certain ways across situations (e.g., to be extraverted, compassionate, tidy, anxious, rebellious [Allport, 1937; Emmons, 1989; Johnson, 1997; Revelle, 2008; Winter et al., 1998]). Personality traits have wide-ranging and substantial impacts on behaviors and outcomes across a variety of domains, from education and career path choices (e.g., Connelly & Ones, 2010; Judge et al., 1999; Poropat, 2009), to art preferences (e.g., Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004), to inventions and creations (e.g., Barron & Harrington, 1981; Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008), to job performance (e.g., Ones et al., 2007), and even to longevity (e.g., Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Kuncel et al., 2010). The research literature incorporating personality constructs is vast: tens of thousands of research studies in diverse fields include a plethora of personality constructs.

A Contemporary Taxonomy of Personality Traits

One of the primary purposes of the research presented is to describe personality traits’ relations with cognitive abilities. To do this as systematically and comprehensively as possible, we leveraged a contemporary taxonomy of personality constructs.

The Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality emerged in the second half of the 20th century as the most parsimonious, cross-culturally replicable, empirically supported taxonomy of personality traits (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Cattell, 1943; Goldberg, 1977, 1992). The FFM identifies five families of personality traits, commonly known as the Big Five: neuroticism,5 extraversion, openness/intellect, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. These factors have been obtained and refined based on multiple methodologies over the past century, including lexical studies of phenotypic personality traits, joint factor analyses of personality instruments built to assess the Big Five, and factor analyses of personality instruments based on other theoretical perspectives. Their biological (e.g., genetic, neurological) etiologies also continue to be elucidated (DeYoung, 2010a, 2010b, 2015; DeYoung & Gray, 2009; Pincombe et al., 2007). All in all, the FFM is a framework that provides useful organizational structure to the personality construct space. Lower level traits associated with each of the Big Five have also been examined and reported on (Connelly et al., 2014; Davies, 2012; B. W. Roberts et al., 2005; Wilmot & Ones, 2019, 2022; Woo et al., 2014). Furthermore, the Big Five are not orthogonal, giving rise to higher order personality factors (Davies et al., 2015; DeYoung, 2006; Digman, 1997).

Synthesizing these empirical studies and extant literature leads to the following conclusions. Personality traits can be hierarchically organized: there are both higher and lower order factors of the Big Five. At the lowest level are responses to individual items. At a higher level are clusters of items that indicate specific personality facets, which can vary in specificity.6 Facets that share psychological meaning, and likely also similar etiologies, are further grouped into personality aspects (DeYoung et al., 2007), which combine to define the Big Five personality factors.

For example, agreeableness is a broad factor that combines the aspects of compassion and politeness, which themselves encompass various facets, such as cooperation, trust, and modesty (Davies, 2012; Davies et al., 2009; Wilmot & Ones, 2022). Items on individual scales uniquely assess different agreeableness facets to varying degrees. For example, “I prefer to work with others to accomplish goals” is an item that primarily indicates cooperation, whereas “Most people are honest and well intentioned” is an item that indicates trust. The global factor of agreeableness is defined by the common variance that is shared across such facets and items. Personality facets reflect unique genetic and environmental influences (Jang et al., 1998, 2002) and capture variance beyond the global personality factors.

There are three higher order personality traits above the Big Five factors. The first is the construct of stability (DeYoung, 2006; DeYoung et al., 2002), also referred to as socialization, which involves psycho-social maturity and abiding by society’s rules, norms, and conventions. Conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism define this higher order factor, which Digman referred to as “factor alpha.”

The second higher order factor above the Big Five arises from the shared variance between extraversion and openness/intellect. This factor of “personal growth” is termed “factor beta,” and has more recently referred to as “plasticity” (DeYoung et al., 2002). Plasticity is defined by exploratory tendencies related to both extraversion and openness — extraversion contributing to behavioral exploration, and openness representing intellectual exploration. Meta-analyses have provided support for the existence of both factor alpha and factor beta (Davies et al., 2015; Markon et al., 2005).

Third, there is evidence for a general factor of personality at the highest level of the personality hierarchy, at least in self-report measures (Davies et al., 2015; Irwing et al., 2012; van der Linden et al., 2017). Such a general factor in self-reports partially represents a substantive global self-evaluation trait (i.e., self-regard), rather than simple social desirability, untethered from reality.

We previously integrated the lower and higher level constructs of personality into a framework that we refer to as the Pan-Hierarchical Five Factor Model (Pan-Hierarchical FFM; Stanek & Ones, 2018), depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Stanek & Ones (2018) Pan-Hierarchical Five Factor Model of Personality.

Note. Construct names in italics indicate those with consistent loadings on other Big Five factors. See Table 1, below, for compound traits and their Big Five linkages. See Appendix C for definitions of personality traits.

The facet level traits of the Pan-Hierarchical FFM are based on nomological-web clustering (Hough et al., 2015). The defining feature of this approach is an examination of the full nomological network of a proposed personality construct’s convergent and divergent relations, as well as relations with external variables, including criteria. Constructs that exhibit similar relations with other variables, and strong relations with each other, can be grouped together. By examining items, factor analyses, scale descriptions, and relations with other variables, nomological-web clustering improves on more common methods that rely on superficial measure/scale descriptions. Although it can be tempting to ascribe constructs to measures based on the scale name or a primary study author’s description, such methods suffer from significant flaws, including the jingle-jangle fallacy (Kelley, 1927), disparate usage of common terms (e.g., extraversion), and researchers misunderstanding what constructs are actually captured by the measures they employ. Empirical validation (Credé et al., 2016) has provided support for a predecessor of the Pan-Hierarchical FFM (Hough & Ones, 2001). Our updates to Hough and Ones (2001) relied heavily on empirical studies that have appeared since (e.g., Connelly et al., 2014; Jackson et al., 2010; B. W. Roberts et al., 2004, 2005; Woo et al., 2014).

Finally, many personality attributes do not fit neatly within a single superordinate trait family, such as one Big Five factor. Such personality traits are referred to as compound traits (Ones, 2005), as they represent variance from more than one Big Five trait. Table 1 reproduces a compilation of compound personality constructs from Stanek and Ones (2018). For each trait, the Big Five-related personality constructs that contribute variance to that construct are indicated. Definitions of all personality traits studied in the present research are provided in Appendix C.

Similar to our treatment of the cognitive abilities domain, we have compiled a vast compendium of measures that assess each personality construct in the Pan-Hierarchical Five Factor Model of personality. The most recent version of this compendium is provided at http://stanek.workpsy.ch/personality-map/personality-measure-compendium/, and the version used for this book — the 2022 version of the Stanek of Ones (2018) compendium — is provided in Appendix D of the online supplementary materials of this book. The Pan-Hierarchical FFM and its compendium were used to classify and categorize personality measures in the current study. Its cumulative, evidence-based approach is a major strength vis-à-vis individual investigations relying on one or even a few datasets to sort out the multilevel, multifactorial structure of personality constructs. In studying personality-cognitive ability relations, we examine 79 personality traits that were measured with cognitive abilities in studies contributing to our meta-analyses.

In sum, the use of the up-to-date, large-scale, evidence-based taxonomies for both the cognitive ability and personality domains is a major strength of the work presented. Using such taxonomies highlighted similarities as well as differences among specific traits/abilities as well as trait-ability clusters. Furthermore, the clarity and high resolution of these taxonomies enables users interested in other taxonomic structures to re-organize the constructs and examine the resulting patterns of effects. In addition, these taxonomies afford clear definitions of each construct that cut through the jingle-jangle fallacy (Kelley, 1927) pervasive in these two domains. This clarity not only increases consistency in the construct categorization process but also precision in the discussion of findings. Finally, the use of transparent, open-access, well-validated compendia for both the personality domain and the cognitive ability domain supports the replicability and future extension of the analyses presented.

References

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Henry Holt & Co.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1). http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/mon/47/1/i/

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 439–476.

Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476.

Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. World Book Co.

Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 1.

Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1092.

Connelly, B. S., Ones, D. S., Davies, S. E., & Birkland, A. (2014). Opening up Openness: A theoretical sort following critical incidents methodology and a meta-analytic investigation of the trait family measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 17–28.

Credé, M., Harms, P. D., Blacksmith, N., & Wood, D. (2016). Assessing the utility of compound trait estimates of narrow personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(5), 503–513.

Davies, S. E. (2012). Lower and higher order facets and factors of the interpersonal traits among the big Five: Specifying, measuring, and understanding extraversion and agreeableness [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota.

Davies, S. E., Connelly, B. S., Ones, D. S., & Birkland, A. S. (2015). The general factor of personality: The “Big One,” a self-evaluative trait, or a methodological gnat that won’t go away? Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 13–22.

Davies, S.E., Ones, D. S., & Connelly, B. S. (2009, April). Exploring the dimensionality of extraversion: Factors and facets. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America.

DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138.

DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.

DeYoung, C. G. (2010a). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1165–1180.

DeYoung, C. G. (2010b). Toward a theory of the Big Five. Psychological Inquiry, 21(1), 26–33.

DeYoung, C. G., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Personality neuroscience: Explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology, 323. http://213.55.83.52/ebooks/Social%20Science/Psychologie/cambridge%20handbook%20personality.pdf#page=379

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 533–552.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880.

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246.

Dilchert, S. (2018). Cognitive ability. In D. S. Ones, N. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 248–276). Sage.

Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Educational Testing Service.

Emmons, R. A. (1989). The personal striving approach to personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 87–126). Psychology Press.

Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 613–617.

Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality, intelligence, and art. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 705–715.

Goldberg, L. R. (1977). Language and personality: Developing a taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms. An Invited Address to the Division of Evaluation and Measurement. annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, California, United States of America.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2016). A g theorist on Why Kovacs and Conway’s process overlap theory amplifies, not opposes, g theory. Psychological Inquiry, 27(3), 210–217.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997b). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23.

Gottfredson, L. S., & Deary, I. J. (2004). Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 1–4.

Hatch, S. L., Jones, P. B., Kuh, D., Hardy, R., Wadsworth, M. E., & Richards, M. (2007). Childhood cognitive ability and adult mental health in the British 1946 birth cohort. Social Science & Medicine, 64(11), 2285–2296.

Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 233–277). Sage.

Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ock, J. (2015). Beyond the Big Five: New directions for personality research and practice in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 183–209.

Irwing, P., Booth, T., Nyborg, H., & Rushton, J. P. (2012). Are g and the General Factor of Personality (GFP) correlated? Intelligence, 40(3), 296–305.

Jackson, J. J., Wood, D., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Harms, P. D., & Roberts, B. W. (2010). What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the Behavioral Indicators of Conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 501–511.

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Vernon, P. A. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on the covariance of facets defining the domains of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(1), 83–101.

Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1556.

Jensen, A. R. (1993). Psychometric g and achievement. In Policy perspectives on educational testing (pp. 117–227). Springer.

Jewsbury, P. A., Bowden, S. C., & Strauss, M. E. (2016). Integrating the switching, inhibition, and updating model of executive function with the Cattell—Horn—Carroll model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(2), 220.

Johnson, J. A. (1997). Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality. In Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 73–93). Elsevier.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621–652.

Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. World Book Co. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1928-00533-000

Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2007). Standardized tests predict graduate students’ success. Science, 315(5815), 1080–1081.

Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic Performance, Career Potential, Creativity, and Job Performance: Can One Construct Predict Them All?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 148.

Kuncel, N. R., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2010). Individual differences as predictors of work, educational, and broad life outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 331–336.

Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904)”’General intelligence,’objectively determined and measured”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 96.

Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718.

Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 139.

McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151–179). Guilford Press. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1997-97010-009

McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities: Past, Present, and Future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (pp. 136–181). Guilford Press.

McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1), 1–10.

Ones, D. S. (2005). Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. Human Performance, 18(4), 389–404.

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995–1027.

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Salgado, J. F. (2016). Cognitive abilities: Measurement and validity for employee selection. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection. Routledge.

Pincombe, J., Luciano, M., Martin, N., & Wright, M. (2007). Heritability of NEO PI-R extraversion facets and their relationship with IQ. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(3), 462–469.

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.

Revelle, W. (2008). The contribution of reinforcement sensitivity theory to personality theory. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality, 508–527.

Roberts, B. W., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. E. (2004). A lexical investigation of the lower-order structure of conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(2), 164–178.

Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 103–139.

Roberts, R. D., Markham, P. M., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Assessing intelligence: Past, present, and future. In O. Wilhelm & R. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 333–360). Sage Publications.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162.

Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99–144). Guilford Press.

Spearman, C. (1904). “General Intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 201–292.

Stanek, K. C., & Ones, D. S. (2018). Taxonomies and compendia of cognitive ability and personality constructs and measures relevant to industrial, work and organizational psychology. In D. S. Ones, C. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Personnel psychology and employee performance (pp. 366–407). Sage.

Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35(5), 401–426.

van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Dunkel, C. S., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). Overlap between the general factor of personality and emotional intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 36.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Agreements and disagreements on the role of general mental ability (GMA) in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Human Performance, 15(1–2), 211–231.

Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2019). A century of research on conscientiousness at work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(46), 23004–23010.

Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2022). Agreeableness and Its Consequences: A Quantitative Review of Meta-Analytic Findings. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10888683211073008.

Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105(2), 230.

Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Longley, A., Zhang, Z.-X., Chiu, C.-Y., & Stark, S. E. (2014). Openness to experience: Its lower level structure, measurement, and cross-cultural equivalence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 29–45.