Chapter 5

How Personality Traits Relate to Cognitive Abilities

CHAPTER SUMMARY

1. Organizing the results according to personality factors offers a useful perspective.
2. Neuroticism traits’ relations with cognitive abilities:
   1. Are generally negative.
   2. Uneven tempered facet displays substantial, negative correlations.
   3. Anxiety facet relates negatively.
   4. Depression facet has sizable, negative relations.
3. Agreeableness traits’ relations with cognitive abilities:
   1. Are inconsistent.
   2. Compassion and politeness aspects have opposite patterns of relations.
      1. Compassion generally relates positively, while politeness has smaller, negative relations.
4. Conscientiousness traits’ relations with cognitive abilities:
   1. Are mostly positive.
   2. Global conscientiousness has the weakest relations amongst conscientiousness constructs.
   3. Industriousness aspect is a noteworthy, positive correlate.
   4. Some facets more closely aligned with industriousness have notable, positive relations.
   5. Cautiousness has mostly weak, negative relations.
5. Extraversion traits’ relations with cognitive abilities:
   1. Are mostly negligible at the global factor level.
   2. Activity facet has sizable, positive relations, especially with long term storage and retrieval, visual processing, and processing speed abilities.
   3. Activity facet is also a robust, positive correlate of acquired knowledge abilities.
   4. Enthusiasm aspect and associated positive emotionality and sociability facets have modest, inconsistent relations.
   5. Sociability facet is positively related to verbal abilities.
   6. Sensation seeking facet has mostly negligible relations.
   7. Assertiveness aspect and dominance facet have modest, positive correlations with long term storage and retrieval constructs related to retrieval fluency.
6. Openness traits’ relations with cognitive abilities:
   1. Are stronger than other Big Five globalfactors.
   2. Intellect aspect and its associated need for cognition and ideas facets are strong, positive correlates.
      1. Relations with verbal abilities are stronger than quantitative abilities.
   3. Non traditional facet is a notably positive, though inconsistent, correlate.
   4. Experiencing aspect and its associated fantasy and aesthetics facets display mostly negligible relations, with notable exceptions being experiencing’s positive relations with acquired quantitative and verbal abilities.
7. Higher order traits’ relations with cognitive abilities:
   1. Factor alpha generally has much smaller relations than those observed for several of the neuroticism- and conscientiousness-related personality constructs.
   2. Factor beta generally has positive relations, but the true standard deviations are relatively large in most instances.
   3. General factor of personality is sizably correlated with general mental ability, indicating a cross-domain, general fitness cluster associated with cybernetic effectiveness and the agility to move effectively between a focus on surviving and a focus on thriving, as the environment demands.

Results indicate that, contrary to common belief, the links between personality traits and cognitive abilities are not limited to the Big Five factor of openness and its components. Instead, several other personality traits show relations with cognitive abilities that are of even greater magnitude.

This chapter describes our meta-analytic findings for how personality traits relate to cognitive abilities. We organize findings according to the Pan-Hierarchical Five Factor Model (Stanek & Ones, 2018). Definitions of personality traits and of each cognitive ability construct may be found in Appendices A and C and compendia of measures for each can be found in Appendices B and D. By reviewing findings from the perspective of personality traits, we hope that personality researchers will come to recognize traits that are linked to cognitive abilities, and the importance of personality-ability clusters in psychological research and applications.

Findings for each of the Big Five personality factors and their associated aspects and facets are presented first. Next come findings for compound personality traits—traits that include substantial variance from more than one Big Five factor. Finally, empirical relations between higher order personality traits (e.g., factor beta/plasticity) and cognitive abilities are described.

Full meta-analytic results for personality traits are presented in Supplementary Tables 197–275 (see Appendix I). These tables provide uncorrected correlations as well as correlations corrected for unreliability. None of the meta-analyses presented have applied range restriction corrections. Each table is devoted to a distinct personality trait (e.g., industriousness), and its associations with the full set of cognitive abilities examined. The indentation of each construct name within the table reflects the altitude of each ability (e.g., dimension, sub-dimension).

This chapter and its associated tables and figures describe 3,543 meta-analytic relations between 79 personality traits and 97 cognitive abilities.

Overviews of results are visualized in Figures 12 through 17. In these visualizations, p̂ estimates (i.e., meta-analytic correlations) are only reported in black type if the number of independent effect sizes contributing the specific meta-analysis was greater than or equal to 10 or if the effect was based on at least 1,000 participants. Grey-filled cells had no usable data in our meta-analytic database. Green-filled cells indicate positive effect sizes, and red-filled cells indicate negative effect sizes. Fill saturation indicates effect size magnitude.

In our description and discussion of results, we highlight the main findings and trends rather than noting every single meta-analytic relation examined. We encourage readers who are interested in certain personality traits to examine in-depth the full set of tables presented.

As stated in Chapter 4, when interpreting findings, the reader should keep in mind that relations around .10 indicate effect sizes that are

small…but potentially more ultimately consequential, an effect-size r of .20 indicates a medium effect that is of some explanatory and practical use even in the short run and therefore even more important, and an effect-size r of .30 indicates a large effect that is potentially powerful in both the short and the long run. (Funder & Ozer, 2019).

Big Five Personality Traits and Cognitive Abilities

Neuroticism and Its Family of Personality Constructs

Neuroticism and its sub-traits generally involve experiencing negative emotions. Neuroticism’s aspects are volatility and withdrawal, and its major facets are anxiety, depression, negative affect, suspiciousness, and uneven tempered. The positive pole of neuroticism—emotional stability—is a core personality trait in self-preservation. Specifically, it promotes internal psychological stability, regulates negative emotions, and therefore reinforces homeostasis. Neuroticism’s relations with cognitive abilities may be understood as trait complexes that promote internal stability (e.g., increased ability to deal with complexity may be associated with calm mental states, which together insulate the internal self).

Figure 12 summarizes results for neuroticism constructs. The indentation of each construct name in this and subsequent figures reflects the altitude of each trait (e.g., factor, aspect, facet). Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 197–208 (see Appendix I).

Figure 12. Neuroticism-related traits correlate with cognitive abilities.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂) are only reported in black type when the number of independent effect sizes contributing the specific meta-analysis was ≥ 10 or the sample was ≥ 1,000 participants. Grey-filled cells had no usable data. Green-filled cells indicate positive effects, and red-filled cells indicate negative effects. Saturation indicates effect magnitude. Indentation of construct labels reflects the altitude of each trait in its respective construct hierarchy. Y-axis dendrogram further reinforces level of each ability in the abilities hierarchy.

The overall pattern of neuroticism constructs’ relations with cognitive abilities is negative. Relations between global neuroticism and cognitive ability constructs were mostly negative, albeit modest. Specifically, global neuroticism’s relations were negative and most sizable with the spatial scanning sub-dimension of visual processing, processing speed, and psychomotor ability finger dexterity. In addition, it related negatively to several acquired knowledge abilities including quantitative ability, general verbal information, comprehension knowledge, foreign language proficiency, reading comprehension, mechanical knowledge, and physical sciences knowledge (p̂ range = -.12 to -.18).

Negative affect is one of the best markers for global neuroticism (Watson & Clark, 1984), but these measures were analyzed separately to examine areas of convergent and divergent relations. Overall, the relations between negative affect and cognitive ability constructs were comparable to global neuroticism in both direction and magnitude. However, general mental ability, induction, quantitative reasoning, and lexical knowledge displayed some of the largest negative relations with negative affect (p̂ = -.16, -.14, -.12, and -.27, respectively). Relations were typically larger than their counterparts for global neuroticism, but some notable variability was associated with each effect size (see Supplementary Tables 197–208 in Appendix I), leading to overlapping credibility intervals for negative affect and global neuroticism’s relations with abilities.

The pattern of negative relations held for the two aspects of neuroticism: withdrawal and volatility. For withdrawal, several true-score correlations were -.10 to -.17 in magnitude (i.e., general mental ability, fluid abilities, retrieval fluency abilities, short term memory constructs, some reaction and decision speed abilities, and lexical knowledge). The volatility aspect generally correlated less with cognitive abilities. Two exceptions were notably stronger correlations with fluid ability (p̂ = -.23) and general sequential reasoning (p̂ = -.30), but these results may be impacted by second-order sampling error (i.e., for both, N = 1,107, K = 2).

Neuroticism facets aligned with the volatility aspect (e.g., uneven tempered and suspiciousness) related more strongly and differentially to cognitive abilities, though relations with the suspiciousness facet were weaker than those with the uneven tempered facet. Suspiciousness’ negative relations, however, spanned a wide range: general mental ability (p̂ = -.17), fluid abilities (induction [p̂ = -.10] and quantitative reasoning [p̂ = -.27]), a few short and long term memory constructs (i.e., free recall memory, retrieval fluency, memory span, and working memory capacity; p̂ range = -.19 to -.27]), visualization (p̂ = -.11), perceptual speed (p̂ = -.14), and several verbal abilities (e.g., reading comprehension [p̂ = -.21] and comprehension knowledge abilities [p̂ range = -.22 to -.28]).

Uneven tempered facet of neuroticism displays considerable, negative correlations with cognitive abilities. The uneven tempered facet displayed the strongest negative relations with comprehension knowledge and some of its sub-dimensions (mean1 p̂ = -.28, p̂ range = -.26 to -.33). Uneven tempered’s relations with other acquired knowledge abilities were also sizable: reading comprehension (p̂ = -.30), mathematics achievement (p̂ = -.29), native language usage (p̂ = -.28), and spelling ability (p̂ = -.25). Furthermore, it correlated negatively and substantially with several domain specific knowledge sub-dimensions (e.g., arts and humanities knowledge [p̂ = -.32], life sciences knowledge [p̂ = -.29]) (see Supplementary Tables 197–208 in Appendix I). Its relations with domain independent abilities (e.g., induction) and processing speed were notably weaker (p̂ = -.11 and -.17 with induction and perceptual speed, respectively). Accordingly, the findings are consistent with uneven temper directly or indirectly hindering acquisition of knowledge.

Anxiety is a facet of neuroticism that is negatively related to cognitive abilities. Anxiety’s relations were weaker than for the uneven tempered and depression facets of neuroticism (discussed above and below, respectively). Anxiety correlated -.07 with general mental ability (N = 55,681, K = 128) and similarly with multiple fluid abilities. Test anxiety is a common form of anxiety in response to being assessed. Test anxiety was moderately, negatively related to most cognitive abilities (mean p̂ = -.21), which was similar to some other neuroticism facets (e.g., -.17 for depression with invested abilities, -.18 for suspiciousness with memory abilities). We also note sizeable variability across the correlations pooled for some test anxiety meta-analyses (e.g., general mental ability, SDp̂ = .22, p̂ = -.20, N = 9,293, K = 42), indicative of heterogeneous effects. Finally, the fact that positive relations are still observed for many other traits (e.g., industriousness, sociability) indicates that being anxious during a cognitive ability test does not overshadow the effects of these traits. The present dataset did not allow us to examine if test anxiety mediates these relations or exerts independent effects.

Depression is a facet of neuroticism that has sizable, negative relations with cognitive abilities. Overall, relations between the depression facet and cognitive ability constructs were negative and markedly larger in magnitude than global neuroticism. The strongest cognitive correlates were the fluid ability sub-dimension quantitative reasoning (p̂ = -.25) and the dimension of visual processing (p̂ = -.32, N = 51,201 and 1,057, K = 24 and 6, respectively). In general, notable relations were observed with fluid abilities, retrieval fluency (except for originality and creativity), short term memory, and visual processing, as well as with verbal ability sub-dimensions (p̂ range = -.09 to -.32).

What can explain these neuroticism-ability relations? Could the association between lower neuroticism and abilities reflect an adaptive advantage? When survival is the goal and the environment is resource-scarce or unsupportive (even threatening), trait complexes tuned to low energy usage may be the most adaptive life strategy. In these situations, higher depression and withdrawal accompanied by lower cognitive functioning may represent a “low-energy survival mode.” Our meta-analyses of depression support this negative, sizable link with cognitive abilities. The psychically enervating effects of depression diminish cognitive performance and invested cognitive abilities.2 It is also possible that low cognitive ability may spur a predisposition to feel anxious, cautious, and negative. Another possibility is that environmental signals (e.g., pre-natal malnutrition) trigger adjustments in the individual toward a strategy of low energy usage that is adaptive for unsupportive (i.e., resource-poor and/or threat-rich) environments. This low energy usage may manifest in low cognitive ability, including acquired knowledge, as well as an inclination toward homeostasis rather than change. In short, when the environment seems unsupportive, the brain may adjust cognitive capabilities and behavioral tendencies to optimize preservation of limited resources rather than taking risks with novelty or change.

Agreeableness and Its Family of Personality Constructs

Agreeableness comprises a family of traits that all relate to getting along with others. Its aspects are compassion and politeness, and its major facets are cooperation, lack of aggression, modesty, non manipulative, nurturance, and tendermindedness. Agreeableness traits help maintain the individual in social environments (e.g., by predisposing them toward harmony, helping others, and getting along rather than aggressiveness, selfishness, and disregard for others).

Figure 13 summarizes results for agreeableness constructs. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 209–223 (see Appendix I).

Figure 13. Agreeableness-related traits correlate with cognitive abilities.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂) are only reported in black type when the number of independent effect sizes contributing the specific meta-analysis was ≥ 10 or the sample was ≥ 1,000 participants. Grey-filled cells had no usable data. Green-filled cells indicate positive effects, and red-filled cells indicate negative effects. Saturation indicates effect magnitude. Indentation of construct labels reflects the altitude of each trait in its respective construct hierarchy. Y-axis dendrogram further reinforces level of each ability in the abilities hierarchy.

The overall pattern of agreeableness constructs’ relations with cognitive abilities is inconsistent. Of all personality constructs, agreeableness was the Big Five trait with the fewest and smallest connections to cognitive abilities. Global agreeableness and cognitive ability constructs mostly displayed both positive and negative, minute relations. Small, positive relations with global agreeableness were limited to some sub-dimensions of memory (i.e., episodic memory, free recall memory, and memory span). Larger, positive relations were found for the acquired knowledge constructs of reading decoding and life sciences knowledge (p̂ = .18 and .21, N = 2,092 and 4,281, K = 4 and 5, respectively). In contrast, a sub-dimension of processing speed and some quantitatively oriented ability dimensions displayed small, negative relations: pattern recognition (p̂ = -.11), mathematics knowledge (p̂ = -.15), and general science knowledge (p̂ = -.19; see Supplementary Tables 209–223 in Appendix I). The differential relations for agreeableness’ aspects described below may have resulted in conflated, small-to-negligible relations at the global agreeableness factor level.

Compassion and politeness aspects of agreeableness have opposite patterns of relations with cognitive abilities. Compassion tended to be positively correlated with cognitive abilities, and politeness was negatively correlated.

Compassion correlated .26 with general mental ability (N = 357,568, K = 17). Compassion’s relation with induction was .13 (N = 385,883, K = 40). Correlations for the long term storage and retrieval sub-dimension originality and creativity and the short term memory sub-dimension memory span were .19 and .21 (N = 360,973 and 369,506, K = 4 and 4, respectively).

In addition, compassion correlated positively with processing speed sub-dimensions of perceptual speed, scanning, and number facility (p̂ = .19, .15, and .17, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 209–223 in Appendix I). Perception of others’ needs and desires may be an application of perceptual processing in the social domain, perhaps contributing to reasoning about other individuals’ mental states. More direct measures of social perception abilities may reveal stronger relations than the general perceptual abilities studied here.

Lastly, compassion’s most sizable relations were with acquired knowledge dimensions and sub-dimensions—in particular, quantitative ability, mathematics knowledge, mathematics achievement, verbal ability, reading comprehension, native language usage, spelling ability, comprehension knowledge, general verbal information, language development, lexical knowledge, domain specific knowledge, arts and humanities, business knowledge, life sciences knowledge, and social studies knowledge (mean p̂ = .27) (see Supplementary Tables 209–223 in Appendix I for the full set of findings).

In stark contrast, the politeness aspect’s relations with ability constructs were mostly negative and smaller in magnitude. Politeness correlated -.12 and -.16 with induction and quantitative reasoning sub-dimensions of fluid ability (N = 73,945 and 72,068, K = 11 and 3, respectively). For acquired knowledge meta-analyses with robust numbers of participants and/or effect sizes, the relations were again negative and of similar magnitude: -.16 with mathematics knowledge, -.13 with lexical knowledge, -.22 with general science knowledge, and -.13 with physical sciences knowledge (see Supplementary Tables 209–223 in Appendix I).

Agreeableness facets generally followed the same pattern of relations with cognitive abilities as the agreeableness aspects they most closely align with, though the relations tended to be much weaker. Few true-score correlations based on robust data reached a magnitude of .10. Exceptions are reported next.

Similar to findings for agreeableness’ compassion aspect, the cooperation facet correlated .20 with processing speed and the number facility sub-dimension of processing speed (N = 22,155 and 21,025, K = 6 and 8, respectively). Lack of aggression correlated positively with perceptual speed, verbal ability, and reading comprehension (p̂ = .10, .12, and .11, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 209–223 in Appendix I). Interestingly, lack of aggression displayed very small, positive correlations with several cognitive ability constructs, hinting at the possibility that aggression may either partially be a response to a lack of cognitive capacity compared to the environmental demands or be a fitness substitute for cognitive ability.

The non manipulative facet of agreeableness had positive relations with cognitive abilities, except for ideational fluency (p̂ = -.15, N = 1,157, K = 5). That is, manipulativeness appears to be positively correlated with ideational fluency. Specific abilities correlating positively and non-negligibly with being non manipulative were general sequential reasoning, memory span, general verbal information, and lexical knowledge (p̂ = .13, .11, .13, and .11, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 209–223 in Appendix I).

Following the pattern of findings for the politeness aspect, the tender mindedness facet showed small, negative relations (e.g., induction p̂ = -.11, N = 28,968, K = 65). These results suggest that interpersonal relationship traits may garner social support to help maintain individuals in their environments, despite lower general ability to deal with complexity. In the other direction, the relation of tender mindedness with memory span was positive (p̂ = .10, N = 1,240, K = 12), suggesting memory might play a minor assistive role in kind interactions with others.

Relations with agreeableness’ modesty facet tended to be consistently negative. Specifically, general mental ability, ideational fluency, working memory capacity, visual processing, visualization, and lexical knowledge all had negative relations with modesty (p̂ = -.13, -.17, -.13, -.11, -.12, and -.11, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 209–223 in Appendix I).

Finally, agreeableness’ nurturance facet showed mixed relations. Considering robust relations based on sizable samples or numbers of effect sizes, it correlated -.14 with quantitative reasoning, -.16 with mathematics knowledge, -.21 with general science knowledge, and -.12 with physical sciences knowledge (see Supplementary Tables 209–223 in Appendix I). However, it had a small, positive relation with comprehension knowledge (p̂ = .14, N = 1,501, K = 6).

Interpreting the entire pattern of findings for agreeableness requires an understanding of the role that agreeableness plays in maintaining the individual in social environments. Agreeableness traits enable attainment of goals via genuine helpfulness and empathy. Compassion and politeness are two aspects of agreeableness. Compassion is willingness to expend energy on non-kin, which contributes to a social group and thereby weaves a social safety net for the individual. In contrast, politeness involves following socially prescribed rules for conduct, facilitating transactional interactions. Even though previous meta-analyses have reported null effects for agreeableness-cognitive abilities relations, we expected politeness-related traits that engage inhibitory cybernetic mechanisms to avoid rude, manipulative, and belligerent behavior (e.g., politeness, kindness, and modesty) would reduce cognitive resources available for goal pursuit, and therefore be negatively correlated with most cognitive abilities. An alternative hypothesis leading to a similar prediction is that higher-ability individuals may not need the socialized tendencies offered by politeness-related traits in the pursuit of goals. In contrast, compassion-related traits may be less of a net resource loss since they also build social credit that adds resources to the individual’s social and psychological capital, which helps support the individual in surviving and thriving.

Several meta-analyses provided evidence for these ideas. Specifically, we found politeness-related traits to be negatively correlated with induction and quantitative reasoning sub-dimensions of fluid ability as well as with several invested abilities (i.e., mathematics knowledge, lexical knowledge, general science knowledge, physical sciences knowledge). Such findings could come about if higher levels of psychological resources are directed to or invested in cognitive domains at the expense of investment in social and/or behavioral expressions such as politeness, which is the “reasoned (or at least cognitively influenced) consideration of and respect for others’ needs and desires” (DeYoung, 2013). Put differently, psychological energy is a finite resource, and its allocation to certain cognitive pursuits may result in the sacrifice of other areas (e.g., politeness).

Conscientiousness and Its Family of Personality Constructs

Conscientiousness designates a family of traits related to self-discipline and organization. Its aspects are industriousness and orderliness. Its major facets are achievement, cautiousness, dependability, order, persistence, and procrastination avoidance. Different aspects and facets of conscientiousness are associated with homeostasis and change. Orderliness and cautiousness can be adaptive for maintenance of homeostasis, whereas industriousness can contribute to change as well as general success.

Figure 14 summarizes results for conscientiousness constructs. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 224–239 (see Appendix I).

Figure 14. Conscientiousness-related traits correlate with cognitive abilities.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂) are only reported in black type when the number of independent effect sizes contributing the specific meta-analysis was ≥ 10 or the sample was ≥ 1,000 participants. Grey-filled cells had no usable data. Green-filled cells indicate positive effects, and red-filled cells indicate negative effects. Saturation indicates effect magnitude. Indentation of construct labels reflects the altitude of each trait in its respective construct hierarchy. Y-axis dendrogram further reinforces level of each ability in the abilities hierarchy.

The overall pattern of conscientiousness constructs’ relations with cognitive abilities is mostly positive. Conscientiousness constructs tended to correlate positively with cognitive abilities. The strongest relations were for cognitive ability constructs involving cognitive retrieval, specifically retrieval fluency (e.g., mean = .13 between retrieval fluency and conscientiousness’ facets) and knowledge retrieval related to invested verbal ability broadly defined (mean p̂ = .13 with conscientiousness, its aspects, and its facets). We interpret this complex of associated traits and abilities as indicative of overall adaptability.

Among conscientiousness constructs, global conscientiousness has the weakest relations with cognitive abilities. The relations of global conscientiousness with cognitive abilities were generally weaker and less consistent than those of conscientiousness aspects and facets. Most relations were positive but smaller than .06 in magnitude. Some notable exceptions are described below.

Global conscientiousness displayed some sizable, negative correlations with several acquired knowledge abilities in the science and mathematics domains. These included general science knowledge, mathematics knowledge, and natural sciences knowledge (p̂ = -.22, -.17, and -.11, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I) among others. High levels of conscientiousness being associated with a quantitative disadvantage may be partially explained by its uniformly negative, albeit mild, correlations with fluid abilities. Fluid ability correlated -.14 with conscientiousness, though fluid ability sub-dimensions’ relations were weaker, at -.05, -.06, and -.05 (for induction, general sequential reasoning, and quantitative reasoning, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). Such relations suggest that less-conscientious individuals have slightly higher fluid abilities, and this dynamic may be amplified in invested science and mathematics abilities.

These negative relations notwithstanding, there were a few areas where global conscientiousness tended to be positively associated with abilities, especially those more associated with structure, procedures, and practice. First, for processing speed ability as well as its sub-dimension number facility, relations were positive and sizable in magnitude (p̂ = .17 and .25, N = 21,138 and 34,605, K = 7 and 21, respectively). Second, for two areas of domain specific knowledge, true-score correlations were positive and sizable as well (i.e., foreign language proficiency p̂ = .37 and behavioral and psychological knowledge p̂ = .20, N = 1,150 and 1,531, K = 2 and 5, respectively).

The disparate negative and positive relations for global conscientiousness are likely related to the differential effects of conscientiousness’ aspects.

Orderliness and industriousness aspects of conscientiousness have differential patterns of relations with cognitive abilities. The orderliness aspect represents general tendencies toward precision, organization, neatness, and perfectionistic strivings (DeYoung, 2013; Stanek & Ones, 2018; Tian, 2021). Orderliness’ relations mostly followed the pattern of global conscientiousness with abilities. Several negative relations with acquired science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) related abilities were found (p̂ = -.21 for mathematics knowledge, -.28 for general science knowledge, and -.09 for physical sciences knowledge; see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I) as were negative relations with fluid ability sub-dimensions (p̂ = -.12 for induction, -.09 for general sequential reasoning, and -.17 for quantitative reasoning; see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). We also note the uniformly negative, even if small, relations between orderliness and visual processing abilities (e.g., p̂ = -.07 for visualization and -.10 for spatial scanning, N = 76,647 and 1,205, K = 26 and 5, respectively). Similar to global conscientiousness, orderliness was also found to have slight, positive relations with processing speed ability sub-dimensions (i.e., p̂ = .06 for perceptual speed, .08 for scanning, and .13 for number facility; see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I).

There were a few differences though. Unlike global conscientiousness, orderliness had consistent, positive but small associations with long term memory’s retrieval fluency sub-dimensions (p̂ = .02 to .13). In addition, it had positive associations with spelling ability (p̂ = .22), native language usage (p̂ =.12), arts and humanities knowledge (p̂ = .09), and social studies knowledge (p̂ = .16). These may reflect the developmental role of orderliness in translating small processing speed and retrieval fluency advantages into acquired knowledge in these areas (see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). However, orderliness’ negative relation with lexical knowledge stood in contrast to this proposition (p̂ = -.17, N = 78,579, K = 30).

What are some possible explanations for these patterns of findings? There may be positive relations between conscientiousness-related traits and cognitive abilities, especially for abilities that require goal prioritization and effortful control over extended periods of time such as during knowledge acquisition (i.e., mathematical knowledge, verbal knowledge, and knowledge specific to various domains).3 However, the orderliness aspect of conscientiousness in particular may be less important to, or may even detract from, goal pursuit. That is, imposing structure on one’s environment may not always be optimal for all goals, and it may represent a failure to use self-regulation to focus on the highest-priority goals. For example, compulsion may drive a person to clean their desk before working on a more important task. An alternative explanation suggested by the compensation hypothesis (Moutafi et al., 2004; cf. Murray et al., 2014) is that higher-ability individuals may not need the structure added by orderliness-related traits to self-regulate toward goal states. Consistent with these predictions, meta-analyses for orderliness and order generally displayed negative relations with cognitive abilities. The industriousness aspect of conscientiousness reflects individual differences in being hard-working, resourceful, and competent (DeYoung et al., 2007; Stanek & Ones, 2018). Industriousness’ positive relations with cognitive abilities were supportive of the goal prioritization and effortful control explanations.

Industriousness is a noteworthy, positive correlate of cognitive abilities. The industriousness aspect of conscientiousness was one of the strongest personality correlates of general mental ability across its 89 meta-analyses (p̂ = .32). This positive relation was robust, with a lower 80% credibility value of .23. Positive but weaker correlations with specific abilities suggest that the stronger relation with general mental ability may be the cumulative consequence of industriousness’ numerous links to many specific abilities. Notably, positive relations were found for retrieval fluency sub-dimensions: associational fluency, originality and creativity, and word fluency (p̂ = .14, .26, and .09, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). Short term memory and its sub-dimension memory span; visual processing and its sub-dimension visualization;4 and processing speed sub-dimensions perceptual speed, scanning, and number facility also had positive associations with industriousness (p̂ = .13, .21, .13, .11, .17, .15, and .21, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). Given these results, it is not surprising that industriousness emerged as a more potent, persistent, and positive correlate of acquired knowledge abilities than global conscientiousness and its orderliness aspect. In fact, most industriousness-knowledge relations were in excess of .23, including quantitative ability (p̂ = .33), mathematics knowledge (p̂ = .23), mathematics achievement (p̂ = .34), verbal ability (p̂ = .33), reading comprehension (p̂ = .31), native language usage (p̂ = .31), spelling ability (p̂ =.31), comprehension knowledge (p̂ = .27), general verbal information (p̂ = .34), language development (p̂ = .29), lexical knowledge (p̂ = .26), domain specific knowledge (p̂ = .31), arts and humanities knowledge (p̂ = .34), business knowledge (p̂ = .33), life sciences knowledge (p̂= .29), and social studies knowledge (p̂ = .28) (see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). Other positive relations with acquired knowledge abilities were in the .16 to .19 range, including realistic knowledge, mechanical knowledge, natural sciences knowledge, and physical sciences knowledge. These results offer evidence that the industriousness aspect of conscientiousness may be a key element of cybernetic motivation and play an important role in the acquisition of knowledge. More specifically, industriousness likely guides the investment of short term memory, long term retrieval fluency, visual processing, and processing speed abilities into tasks of knowledge acquisition, which require persistent prioritization of goals and sustained effort over time.5

Conscientiousness facets displayed mostly positive but weak relations with cognitive abilities, but there were some notable exceptions, discussed below.

Some facets of conscientiousness more closely aligned with the industriousness aspect have notable, positive correlations with cognitive abilities, whereas some facets aligned with orderliness have less consistent relations. Achievement’s relations with cognitive abilities were generally positive though small. Of its more sizable relations, it correlated .23 with long term storage and retrieval (broadly defined) as well as with free recall memory (p̂ = .21), .15 with retrieval fluency, and .20 with reading comprehension (see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). Persistence’s relations with cognitive abilities were also positive but somewhat weaker than achievement’s, and few exceeded .10 in magnitude. Its more sizable relations were with ideational fluency and closure speed as well as perceptual speed (p̂ = .13, .14, and .15, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I).

The dependability facet of conscientiousness represents tendencies to be responsible and dutiful (Stanek & Ones, 2018). Its pattern of relations with cognitive abilities was somewhat like those of facets associated with the industriousness aspect. Dependability’s relations with acquired knowledge abilities were generally positive, though typically weaker than the industriousness aspect of conscientiousness, and varied across abilities (p̂ range = .06 to .39). Moderate, positive relations were found for dependability with general mental ability (p̂ = .16), memory constructs (p̂ = .17 for free recall memory, .21 for retrieval fluency, and .15 for memory span), visual processing (p̂ = .15), and some acquired knowledge abilities (p̂ = .16 for mathematics knowledge, .23 for mathematics achievement, .24 for verbal ability and comprehension knowledge, .27 for natural sciences knowledge, and .39 for social studies knowledge) (see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). Interestingly, dependability’s associations with the above-noted memory constructs suggest that dependability of character may also indicate dependability of knowledge acquisition and retrieval from long term memory.

Orderliness aspect’s order facet had more varied relations: negative with fluid abilities and positive with acquired knowledge abilities. Specifically, it related negatively to fluid ability (p̂ = -.32, N = 43,299, K = 50) and deductive capabilities (i.e., p̂ = -.12 with general sequential reasoning, N = 8,685, K = 36). Yet order displayed several positive, sizable relations with several important acquired knowledge abilities: quantitative ability (p̂ = .13), mathematics knowledge (p̂ = .12), mathematics achievement (p̂ = .14), verbal ability (p̂ = .25), reading comprehension (p̂ = .21), native language usage (p̂ = .26), spelling ability (p̂ = .30), comprehension knowledge (p̂ = .25), general verbal information (p̂ = .20), language development (p̂ = .25), lexical knowledge (p̂ = .19), domain specific knowledge (p̂ = .20), arts and humanities knowledge (p̂ = .26), business knowledge (p̂ = .20), life sciences knowledge (p̂ = .18), and social studies knowledge (p̂ = .12) (see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). Almost all these acquired knowledge findings, however, were driven by Project Talent. Although Project Talent was a representative and large sample study, it is difficult to discern if the same relations will be observed in a broader population of studies. Appendix E’s “Impact of Outlier Samples” section provides more information about Project Talent and its influence on some findings. The interested reader is also directed to Supplementary Tables 100–196 and 276–354 in Appendices H and J for results without Project Talent data, where some relations are still positive but smaller in magnitude.

Finally, order’s relations with other non-invested abilities were generally much weaker. This was true for long term storage and retrieval as well as visual processing abilities. One exception was order’s relations with specific processing speed abilities, which were uniformly positive and notable (i.e., perceptual speed, scanning, and number facility: p̂ = .20, .18., and .19, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). This pattern of findings indicates that the order facet of conscientiousness might offer behavioral advantages (e.g., organizing one’s materials) and processing speed advantages that enable more acquisition of knowledge. These results appear to be distinct from those reported above for the orderliness aspect of conscientiousness, underscoring the previously noted distinction between order and orderliness.

Cautiousness has weak, negative relations with many abilities. Among conscientiousness facets, cautiousness’ relations with cognitive abilities stood out: most relations were negative, though small. General mental ability correlated -.08 with cautiousness (N = 380,929, K = 72), and fluid ability and general sequential reasoning were also negatively related to cautiousness (p̂ = -.07 and -.14, N = 2,772 and 12,720, K = 12 and 38, respectively). Relations with visual processing and processing speed abilities were in the negligible range and not variable. Acquired knowledge abilities evidenced small, near-uniform, negative correlations, including quantitative ability (p̂ = -.06), mathematics knowledge (p̂ = -.07), mathematics achievement (p̂ = -.07), verbal ability (p̂ = -.08), reading comprehension (p̂ = -.10), native language usage (p̂ = -.04), spelling ability (p̂ = -.06), general verbal information (p̂ = -.14), language development (p̂ = -.13), lexical knowledge (p̂ = -.12), domain specific knowledge (p̂ = -.14), arts and humanities (p̂ = -.18), business knowledge (p̂ = -.16), realistic knowledge (p̂ = -.10), life sciences knowledge (p̂ = -.10), mechanical knowledge (p̂ = -.07), physical sciences knowledge (p̂ = -.07), and social studies knowledge (p̂ = -.13) (see Supplementary Tables 224–239 in Appendix I). The pervasiveness of these small, negative correlations indicates that individual differences in being cautious are associated with slightly lower levels of knowledge acquired in most domains. In other words, taking chances—expanding beyond one’s comfort zone—may be associated with the experience of learning. Alternatively, individuals may exhibit higher levels of cautiousness to compensate for lower levels of inductive abilities and crystallized knowledge. That is, cautiousness may be a coping mechanism for lower inductive abilities in processing information into knowledge. The negative associations of cautiousness with long term storage and retrieval abilities provide some support for the former explanation.

Extraversion and Its Family of Personality Constructs

Extraversion designates a family of traits that reflect behavioral engagement with the external world and sensitivity to rewards. Its aspects are assertiveness and enthusiasm, and its major facets are activity, dominance, positive emotionality, sensation seeking, and sociability. Extraversion is closely aligned with arousal and behavioral activation rather than behavioral inhibition. Extraversion is at the root of behavioral activation for change, reflecting sensitivity and response to environmental cues that signal the need for behavioral changes. Unsurprisingly, traits in this cluster relate to the accomplishment of ambitions and status, as well as leading and influencing (Wilmot et al., 2019). Given these roles, extraversion traits of assertiveness, dominance, and activity likely work in tandem with cognitive abilities, resulting in positive associations of cognitive abilities and these extraversion traits. In contrast, we expected extraversion traits with more hedonistic utility, such as sociability and sensation seeking, to be negligibly or negatively related to cognitive abilities, except in the processing abilities arena. Previous meta-analyses reported mostly null effects for extraversion-cognitive abilities relations (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Wolf & Ackerman, 2005). More recently, Anglim et al. (2022) reported small, negative relations for sociability and sensation seeking with invested ability. We found that the more nuanced view of extraversion-ability relations afforded by considering the full spectrum of extraversion facets and cognitive abilities and the higher resolution offered by the extensive database we compiled revealed previously unacknowledged relations.

Figure 15 summarizes results for extraversion constructs. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 240–255 (see Appendix I).

Figure 15. Extraversion-related traits correlate with cognitive abilities.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂) are only reported in black type when the number of independent effect sizes contributing the specific meta-analysis was ≥ 10 or the sample was ≥ 1,000 participants. Grey-filled cells had no usable data. Green-filled cells indicate positive effects, and red-filled cells indicate negative effects. Saturation indicates effect magnitude. Indentation of construct labels reflects the altitude of each trait in its respective construct hierarchy. Y-axis dendrogram further reinforces level of each ability in the abilities hierarchy.

In general, global extraversion is negligibly related to cognitive abilities. Echoing previous meta-analyses of abilities-extraversion relations, extraversion correlated in the .01 to -.06 range with general mental ability and fluid abilities. There were two exceptions to the pattern of negligible relations. First, retrieval fluency abilities were positively related to extraversion, though the magnitudes of the relations were modest (e.g., retrieval fluency [p̂ = .13], associational fluency [p̂ = .10], ideational fluency [p̂ = .16], originality and creativity [p̂ = .12], expressional fluency [p̂ = .08], naming facility and speed of lexical access [p̂ = .08], and word fluency [p̂ = .07]; see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I). Second, some acquired knowledge abilities were positively related to extraversion (e.g., native language usage [p̂ = .14], spelling ability [p̂ = .11], and arts and humanities knowledge [p̂ = .12]), whereas some of the more quantitatively-oriented acquired knowledge abilities were negatively related (e.g., quantitative ability [p̂= -.09], mathematics knowledge [p̂ = -.17], and general science knowledge [p̂ = -.19]; see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I).

Extraversion’s activity facet displays sizable, positive relations with cognitive abilities, especially with several long term storage and retrieval, visual processing, and processing speed abilities. In contrast to the global extraversion factor, the activity facet of extraversion correlated .23 with general mental ability (N = 381,809, K = 65). Furthermore, it correlated positively with induction (p̂ = .14), quantitative reasoning (p̂ = .10), and general sequential reasoning (p̂ = .08) (see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I). Activity’s relations with the retrieval fluency sub-dimension of long term storage and retrieval were robust and positive (e.g., ideational fluency [p̂ = .25], originality and creativity [p̂ = .20], as well as naming facility and speed of lexical access [p̂ = .10]). Short term memory span was also positively correlated with activity (p̂ = .13, N = 379,981, K = 19). Similarly, visual processing abilities correlated in the .08 to .11 range, and processing speed abilities had a mean meta-analytic correlation of .14 with activity.

The activity facet of extraversion is also a robust, positive correlate of acquired knowledge abilities. It displayed uniform, positive correlations with all acquired knowledge constructs examined. Relations were sizable, in the .17 to .28 range, across abilities where analyses had sufficient N and K for reliable results to emerge. It appears that individuals who are energetic and active score higher on knowledge measures, regardless of the knowledge domain. Given the preceding results, it seems as though activity is related to retrieval of knowledge from long-term memory, the speed with which stimuli are processed, and the ability to process visual information. This high activity, processing ability, and long term memory trait complex corresponds to a high-performance/energy setting for individuals, which would be advantageous in resource-rich environments. Whether there is unique co-variation between activity and acquired knowledge abilities, above and beyond activity’s relations with the long term storage and retrieval, visual processing, and processing speed abilities noted above, is unanswerable with the present data and should be explored in future research.

Extraversion’s assertiveness aspect and dominance facet have modest, positive correlations with long term storage and retrieval constructs related to retrieval fluency. Assertiveness correlated with free recall memory, associational fluency, and word fluency (p̂ = .12, .16, and .15, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I). Dominance correlated .16 with ideational fluency, .14 with expressional fluency, and .14 with word fluency (see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I). Its relations with short term memory abilities appeared to be weaker. Finally, findings for dominance indicated positive relations with general mental ability (p̂ = .11, N = 418,630, K = 159), as well as several acquired knowledge abilities, most notably quantitative abilities (p̂ range = .11 to .15), several verbal abilities (e.g., language development, general verbal information, spelling ability, and reading comprehension), as well as some domain specific knowledge categories (e.g., arts and humanities knowledge and business knowledge; p̂ = .14, .12, .12, .10, .16, and .12, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I).

Extraversion’s enthusiasm aspect and associated positive emotionality and sociability facets have modest, inconsistent relations with cognitive abilities. Short term memory abilities and long term storage and retrieval abilities appeared to have positive relations with enthusiasm (e.g., free recall memory, retrieval fluency, associational fluency, naming facility and speed of lexical access, word fluency, memory span, and working memory capacity; p̂ = .19, .11, .18, .18, .15, .17, and .14, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I). Other cognitive ability constructs (e.g., visual processing, processing speed, and acquired knowledge) mostly displayed similarly positive relations but supporting data were relatively sparse. Acquired knowledge abilities such as general verbal information, comprehension knowledge, lexical knowledge, and life sciences knowledge correlated positively with enthusiasm (p̂ = .20, .14, .14, and .17, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I).

For the most part, sociability and positive emotionality’s patterns of relations mirrored those of enthusiasm, with some exceptions. Positive emotionality was related to several memory-related constructs (e.g., free recall memory, ideational fluency, and memory span; p̂ = .15, .25, and .12, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I). Non-negligible, positive relations were also observed for visual processing (p̂ = .16, N = 1,213, K = 7) and for psychomotor abilities (e.g., finger dexterity, manual dexterity, and psychomotor speed), though for the latter category the numbers of effect sizes and sample sizes were small. Lastly, the positive emotionality facet was not notably correlated with acquired knowledge abilities.

Sociability’s relations were small and positive with some ability constructs and negative with others. In terms of negative relations, the most conspicuous were quantitative reasoning and general science knowledge (p̂ = -.13 and -.22, N = 84,335 and 72,873, K = 44 and 5, respectively). In terms of positive relations, sociability appeared to be correlated with components of retrieval fluency (e.g., ideational fluency; p̂ = .18, N = 2,603, K = 1; see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I) as well as memory span and several verbal abilities.

Sociability is positively related to verbal abilities. Correlations were .18 for verbal ability, .14 for reading comprehension, .18 for native language usage, .20 for spelling ability, .18 for comprehension knowledge, .17 for general verbal information, and .22 for language development (see Supplementary Tables 240–255 in Appendix I). The communication advantages of sociable individuals also appeared to extend to the acquisition of knowledge in arts and humanities and business (p̂ = .21 and .16, N = 361,935 and 357,837, though K = 1 for both).

Sensation seeking is a facet of extraversion that generally displays negligible relations with cognitive abilities. General mental ability and fluid ability relations were negligible .06 and .07 (N = 24,581 and 31,100, K = 79 and 23, respectively). Likewise, both short and long term storage and retrieval constructs did not correlate highly with sensation seeking. One notable exception was a small, positive relation with ideational fluency (p̂ = .13, N = 4,363, K = 11). More negligible relations were found for visual processing and processing speed abilities. Very few acquired knowledge abilities emerged as correlates of sensation seeking: arts and humanities knowledge (p̂ = .30, N = 1,450, K = 2), more general verbal abilities of comprehension knowledge (p̂ = .16, N = 7,768, K = 24), and general verbal information (p̂ = .15, N = 4,993, K = 21).6

Openness and Its Family of Personality Constructs

Openness designates a set of traits related to cognitive exploration and stimulation. Its aspects are experiencing and intellect, and its major facets are aesthetics, curiosity, fantasy, ideas, introspection, need for cognition, non traditional, and variety seeking.

Figure 16 summarizes results for openness constructs. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 256–272 (see Appendix I).

Figure 16. Openness-related traits correlate with cognitive abilities.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂) are only reported in black type when the number of independent effect sizes contributing the specific meta-analysis was ≥ 10 or the sample was ≥ 1,000 participants. Grey-filled cells had no usable data. Green-filled cells indicate positive effects, and red-filled cells indicate negative effects. Saturation indicates effect magnitude. Indentation of construct labels reflects the altitude of each trait in its respective construct hierarchy. Y-axis dendrogram further reinforces level of each ability in the abilities hierarchy.

Global openness is the Big Five factor most strongly associated with cognitive abilities. It has long been known that the openness family’s personality constructs are among the most closely related to cognitive abilities (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Digman, 1990; Gough, 1953). The current study’s meta-analytic investigations replicated this finding and, overall, the relations between global openness and cognitive ability constructs were larger than relations for most other personality constructs. Openness and general mental ability correlated .26 (N = 280,446, K = 368). The associations between fluid abilities and openness were similarly positive and sizable: .20 with induction, .31 with general sequential reasoning, and .16 with quantitative reasoning (see Supplementary Tables 256–272 in Appendix I). Most long term storage and retrieval constructs for which there were sufficient numbers of effect sizes and large enough sample sizes correlated in the .20 to .25 range with global openness. Short term memory abilities were more weakly correlated (p̂ range = .10 to .19), while relations with visual processing abilities were weaker still (p̂ range = .07 to .14). Relations with processing speed abilities varied by specific ability (e.g., p̂ = .01 for scanning but p̂ = .19 for pattern recognition and p̂ =.10 for perceptual speed; see Supplementary Tables 256–272 in Appendix I).

While invested abilities’ relations with global openness were positive and sizable, verbal abilities’ relations were much stronger than those of quantitative abilities. The mean meta-analytic correlation with acquired verbal abilities (i.e., verbal ability, reading comprehension, reading decoding, spelling ability, comprehension knowledge, general verbal information, lexical knowledge, and listening ability) was .29, whereas the mean meta-analytic correlation with acquired quantitative abilities (i.e., quantitative ability, mathematics knowledge, mathematics achievement) was just .07. The adjacent domain specific ability of physical sciences knowledge also had a weak relation with global openness (p̂ = .06, N = 72,491, K = 5). However, other verbally-oriented domain specific knowledge constructs correlated more strongly: foreign language proficiency, behavioral content knowledge, general science knowledge, social studies knowledge, and arts and humanities knowledge (p̂ = .27, .38, .24, .21, and .15, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 256–272 in Appendix I).

The intellect aspect of openness and its associated need for cognition and ideas facets are strong, positive correlates of cognitive abilities. Relations for intellect, need for cognition, and ideas mostly tracked each other within limits of sampling error. Correlations with general mental ability were .26, .28, and .40, respectively (see Supplementary Tables 256–272 in Appendix I).

Among fluid abilities, induction correlated less with these three openness constructs, .15, .14, and .18, respectively (see Supplementary Tables 256–272 in Appendix I). The mean meta-analytic correlations with general sequential reasoning and quantitative reasoning were .21 and .19, respectively. Relations with long term storage and retrieval, as well as short term memory abilities, were of similar magnitude (mean p̂ across all meta-analyses = .18 and .20, respectively). Relations with visual processing abilities averaged to .21. In general, memory constructs displayed somewhat larger correlations with the ideas facet than with the need for cognition or curiosity facets.

Following this trend, visual processing abilities’ relations were stronger for openness’ ideas facet (p̂ = .31 for general visual processing ability, p̂ = .24 for visualization, p̂ = .22 for closure speed, p̂ = .26 for flexibility of closure) than for the curiosity facet (p̂ = -.06 for general visual processing ability, p̂ = .21 for visualization, p̂ = .01 for closure speed, p̂ = .21 for flexibility of closure) or the need for cognition facet (p̂ = .07 for general visual processing ability, p̂ = .23 for visualization, p̂ = .20 for closure speed; no data were available for flexibility of closure) (see Supplementary Tables 256–272 in Appendix I). Processing speed abilities were modestly, but still positively, correlated with need for cognition, ideas, and curiosity facets (mean p̂ = .13).

Overall, the relations between the intellect aspect and cognitive ability constructs were similar to previous meta-analytic estimates (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Anglim et al., 2022; von Stumm & Ackerman, 2013), with many tending toward moderate to moderately large, positive relations (e.g., general mental ability). Notably, relations between need for cognition and cognitive ability constructs were not dramatically higher than other openness-related traits. Relations of need for cognition with most cognitive abilities were in the same, uniformly moderate to large range (p̂ range = .20 to .36).

The ideas facet was the personality trait that was most strongly and consistently related to cognitive ability constructs (mean p̂= .28) with the magnitudes of the relations especially large for acquired knowledge constructs (p̂ range = .30 to .50). For the most part, these findings mirrored those observed for the intellect aspect but with greater strength.

The intellect aspect of openness and its associated need for cognition and ideas facets are stronger, positive correlates of verbal abilities than quantitative abilities. Mirroring findings for global openness, the mean meta-analytic correlation of intellect with all verbal abilities was .23, whereas the mean meta-analytic correlation with all acquired quantitative abilities was .14. There were also a few large correlations between some domain specific acquired knowledge abilities and the ideas facet (i.e., p̂ = .41 for natural sciences knowledge and p̂ = .50 for social studies knowledge, though second-order sampling error could explain these larger than typical relations given N = 1,614 and 1,676, K = 1 and 2, respectively).

Much less information was available for the curiosity facet, which is also associated with the intellect aspect of openness. Despite the paucity of data, the patterns of relations between curiosity and cognitive abilities largely followed the patterns for the intellect aspect and its related facets described above. These patterns suggest that verbally oriented knowledge acquisition may be more attainable via behaviors (e.g., an interest in ideas) than quantitatively oriented knowledge.

The non traditional facet of openness is a notable, though inconsistent, correlate of cognitive abilities. The non traditional facet describes a predisposition to question long-established beliefs and practices. Its mean meta-analytic correlation with fluid abilities was .19. The corresponding value for all long term storage and retrieval abilities was .13. Although this facet’s relations with visual processing, processing speed, and acquired quantitative abilities were either highly variable, based on sparse data, or negligible, there were sizable relations (p̂ = .24 to .31) with several verbal abilities (e.g., comprehension knowledge, lexical knowledge). It is worth noting that non traditional’s meta-analytic relations often contained zero within the 80% credibility value ranges, indicating lack of homogeneity across effect sizes and therefore, uncertain generalizability.

Openness’ introspection and variety seeking facets have positive but weak relations with cognitive abilities. Their mean meta-analytic correlations with major ability constructs did not exceed .10 (mean p̂ = .05 for fluid abilities, .10 memory abilities, .07 for visual processing abilities, and .04 for processing speed abilities). Relations with acquired quantitative abilities and verbal abilities were also meager (mean for all quantitative abilities p̂ = .14 and for all verbal abilities .07). Stronger relations with domain specific knowledge were based on small numbers of effect sizes, and were likely affected by second-order sampling error: introspection was strongly correlated with natural sciences knowledge (p̂ = .45, N = 1,614, K = 1) and social studies knowledge (p̂ = .49, N = 1,792, K = 2).

The experiencing aspect of openness and its associated fantasy and aesthetics facets are negligibly related to most cognitive abilities. Fluid abilities were uncorrelated with these openness constructs (mean p̂ = .01). Similarly, the mean meta-analytic correlation with visual processing abilities was .00. Relations with all processing speed and memory abilities were somewhat larger (mean p̂ = .08 for processing speed abilities and .09 for memory constructs). Cognitive ability constructs involving creativity, including associational fluency, originality and creativity, and word fluency, demonstrated consistently modest, positive relations (mean p̂ = .12, .17, and .14, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 256–272 in Appendix I).

The experiencing aspect has notable, positive relations with acquired knowledge. In particular, arts and humanities knowledge had the largest association with the experiencing aspect (p̂ = .38, N = 363,385, K = 3). Verbal abilities also demonstrated a sizable relation (mean p̂ = .28). Meta-analytic relations with acquired quantitative abilities were positive and in the .17 to .18 range.7

Across the results for all openness traits there is a distinctive pattern of ability relations for the intellect versus experiencing aspect, which is not surprising given previous work (DeYoung et al., 2005). The positive and substantial relations between intellect-related traits and general mental ability, inductive abilities, and even visuo-spatial abilities might indicate a trait complex associated with initiating adaptation to the external environment through curiosity and engagement with complexities encountered. Indeed, the intellect aspect and its associated facets need for cognition, ideas, and curiosity were among the strongest correlates of general mental ability (e.g., p̂ = .40 for ideas facet). Fluid abilities also evidenced strong and consistent relations with intellect-related traits, though induction displayed weaker correlations compared to more deductive fluid abilities. The same traits had quite strong relations with visuo-spatial abilities as well as with long term memory (i.e., storage and retrieval) and short term memory abilities. Taken together, these results indicate that tendencies to seek cognitively engaging stimuli as well as to interpret stimuli and situations through reasoning and deductive logic appear to be positively and sizably associated with fluid, visuo-spatial, and memory abilities.

As expected, experiencing-related traits from the openness domain (e.g., fantasy, aesthetics) had notably weaker relations with these abilities than those of intellect-related traits (DeYoung et al., 2014). This is because experiencing traits are internally and perceptually oriented, increasing their likelihood to positively cluster with perceptual abilities (e.g., processing speed) as well as creative abilities (e.g., originality) more strongly than intellect-related traits. Such a complex of perceptual abilities and openness’ experiencing constructs reflects interpretation of stimuli and situations through perception. Similarly, experiencing traits’ positive relations with originality and creativity ability provided evidence for unique personality traits and cognitive abilities leading to creativity—a finding even more remarkable given the weaker relations between experiencing and general mental ability.

Overall, openness’ experiencing-related traits were more strongly correlated with verbal knowledge than quantitative knowledge, representing the need to verbalize a variety of perceptual experiences while also contemplating them intellectually.

Compound Personality Traits and Cognitive Abilities

Compound personality traits incorporate substantial variance from more than one Big Five factor. Such traits have been utilized in research and practice for as long as primary personality factors (Bernreuter, 1935), and they are some of the most commonly studied and potent predictors of important outcomes (Ones et al., 1993; Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001). Many of these traits have been defined and their components identified via previous factor analyses, content examinations, and nomological network investigations (Hough & Ones, 2002; Stanek & Ones, 2018).8 Many compound traits displayed non-trivial relations with abilities. In a few cases, the mixtures diluted effects. For example, the compound personality trait of openness to emotions combines variance from high extraversion and high openness, which were related to general mental ability -.02 and .26, and the resulting compound’s relation was .06. In other cases, non-trivial effects of multiple components combined to generate larger relations. For example, extraversion related -.01 and agreeableness related .02 with spatial scanning, while the compound trait of warmth, which incorporates variance from both, related -.15 with the same ability. We summarize the findings for compound personality constructs below and in Figures 12–16. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 206–208, 218–223, 233–239, 248–255, and 267–272 in Appendix I.

Neuroticism-Affiliated Compound Personality Traits

The compound personality traits most influenced by neuroticism include self esteem,9 stress tolerance,10 and locus of control.11 Self esteem represents self-confidence, self-assurance, and self-worth. Stress tolerance is the tendency to handle pressure well and without anxiety, even in stressful conditions. Internal locus of control is a tendency to believe that one has control over what happens to oneself. Self esteem had a mean meta-analytic correlation of .15 across abilities, and was especially correlated with acquired knowledge constructs (mean p̂ = .21). Stress tolerance had a mean meta-analytic correlation of .14 across abilities, and was especially correlated with processing speed abilities, verbal abilities, and domain specific knowledge (mean p̂ = .15, .16, and .19, respectively). Finally, internal locus of control had a mean meta-analytic correlation of .15 across abilities, and was especially correlated with acquired knowledge constructs but also fluid abilities (mean p̂ = .29 and .18, respectively).

Agreeableness-Affiliated Compound Personality Traits

The compound personality traits most influenced by agreeableness include warmth,12 interpersonal sensitivity,13 customer service,14 trust,15 Machiavellianism,16 and self monitoring.17 Warmth is the tendency to be friendly and affiliative. Interpersonal sensitivity is the tendency to be tactful in social situations and sensitive to others’ moods. Customer service combines personality traits associated with high performance in customer-facing roles, especially those that demand high agreeableness. Trust is the tendency to believe in the honesty of others and not question their motives. Machiavellianism is the tendency to disregard social norms and use deceit to achieve personal gains. Self monitoring is the tendency to control one’s public self-presentations.

These traits had negligible relations with cognitive abilities in most cases, but there were a few noteworthy trends. Warmth was negatively correlated with quantitative abilities and with science-related knowledge (mean p̂ = -.12 and -.11, respectively). Interpersonal sensitivity generally had insufficient data to draw conclusions but displayed an intriguing correlation with general mental ability (p̂ = .20, N = 9,855, K = 21) as well as a non-robust but suggestive, positive relation with behavioral content knowledge (p̂ = .24, N = 247, K = 1). Customer service meaningfully correlated with a few cognitive abilities, including general mental ability and the fluid abilities of induction and quantitative reasoning (p̂ = .10, .14, and .13, respectively). Trust displayed small, positive relations with fluid abilities, short term memory abilities, and comprehension knowledge abilities (mean p̂ = .10, .14, and .10, respectively). Machiavellianism correlated positively with fluid abilities, visual processing abilities, mathematics knowledge, and science-related knowledge (mean p̂ = .18, .12, .23, and .22, respectively). Data were very sparse for self monitoring but a small, positive relation was detected with general mental ability (p̂ = .12, N = 3,501, K = 6).

Conscientiousness-Affiliated Compound Personality Traits

The compound personality traits most influenced by conscientiousness include routine seeking,18 cold efficiency,19 judging-perceiving,20 self control,21 type A,22 achievement via independence,23 and rugged individualism.24 Routine seeking is the tendency to desire predictable and orderly daily experiences. Cold efficiency is the tendency to rigidly focus on principles despite costs. Judging-perceiving is the tendency to desire structure and definiteness. Self control is the tendency to restrain behaviors and reactions. Type A is the tendency to be competitive, impatient, and ambitious. Achievement via independence is the tendency to be driven to achieve goals and objectives, particularly in unstructured and unregulated situations. Rugged individualism is the tendency to be bold, adventurous, and put effort toward pursuing goals.

The meta-analytic results indicated that routine seeking was a sizable, negative correlate of cognitive abilities across the spectrum, especially acquired knowledge (mean p̂ = -.20 and -.28, respectively). Cold efficiency showed a small, positive relation with general sequential reasoning (p̂ = .14, N = 7,630, K = 25) and a small, negative relation with originality and creativity (p̂ = -.11, N = 1,188, K = 6). Judging-perceiving was a negative correlate of several cognitive abilities (mean p̂ = -.09), especially fluid abilities and retrieval fluency abilities (mean p̂ = -.14 and -.12, respectively). Self control was not associated with any cognitive abilities, except small relations with physical sciences knowledge (positive), general verbal information (negative), and psychomotor speed (p̂ = .10, -.10, and -.13, respectively). Type A was not a meaningful correlate of any cognitive abilities (mean p̂ = .03). Achievement via independence was a strong, positive correlate of several cognitive abilities (mean p̂ = .31), especially general mental ability, fluid abilities, visual processing abilities, processing speed abilities, and acquired knowledge (p̂ = .37, .17, .26, .13, and .37, respectively). Rugged individualism was positively correlated with several cognitive abilities, in particular acquired knowledge (mean p̂ = .16).

Extraversion-Affiliated Compound Personality Traits

The compound personality traits most influenced by extraversion include optimism,25 ambition,26 ambitious risk taking,27 risk taking,28 managerial potential,29 grandiosity and intimidation,30 narcissism,31 and restrained expression.32 Optimism is the tendency to ascribe positive attributions to events and people. Ambition is the tendency toward initiative-taking, competitiveness, and strong will in pursuit of goals. Ambitious risk taking is the tendency to pursue dangerous activities to achieve power, status, or other rewards without regard for consequences. Risk taking is the tendency to downplay hazards and engage with uncertain ventures. Managerial potential is the tendency to provide fair, stable leadership. Grandiosity and intimidation is the tendency to believe that one is superior to others and deserves special treatment. Narcissism is the tendency to be self-centered, exploitative, and desirous of admiration. Restrained expression is the tendency to be serious, responsible, and in control of one’s impulses.

Optimism was positively correlated with several cognitive abilities, in particular general mental ability, quantitative reasoning, retrieval fluency abilities, short term memory abilities, choice reaction time abilities, acquired quantitative ability, and life sciences knowledge (p̂ = .13, .21, .16, .14, .11, .25, and .22, respectively). Some of ambition’s relations suggest even stronger positive connections, though several were based on small sample sizes and numbers of effect sizes (e.g., mean p̂ = .30 with retrieval fluency constructs across four meta-analyses, but none had more than 1,000 participants or 10 effect sizes). Its strongest robust relations were with acquired knowledge constructs (mean p̂ = .14) as well as processing speed scanning and number facility (p̂ = .66 and .25, respectively). Very few meta-analyses involving ambitious risk taking or risk taking had sufficient data. Managerial potential also had sparse data, but positive relations were observed with general mental ability and lexical knowledge (p̂ = .27 and .10, respectively). Grandiosity and intimidation also had sparse data, but small relations were observed with general mental ability and general science knowledge (p̂ = -.11 and .10, respectively). Narcissism also had sparse data, but the few robust relations were negligible (mean p̂ = -.02). Restrained expression relations were small and positive for quantitative reasoning and verbal ability, but more sizable for general science knowledge (p̂ = .12, .20, and .30, respectively).

Openness-Affiliated Compound Personality Traits

The compound personality traits most influenced by openness include openness to emotions,33 tolerance,34 innovation,35 creative personality,36 independent of conventions and others,37 and resourcefulness.38 Openness to emotions is the tendency to be in touch with one’s feelings and emotional experiences. Tolerance is the tendency to appreciate differences, especially between people. Innovation is the tendency to seek and engage with novelty, often resulting in novel ideas. Creative personality is the proclivity toward ingenuity. Independent of conventions and others is the tendency to be self-sufficient, individualistic, and autonomous. Resourcefulness is the tendency to solve problems with persistence, planning, and novel thinking.

Openness to emotions correlated positively with retrieval fluency abilities (mean p̂ = .23) and perhaps even long term storage and retrieval abilities more broadly (not considering N and K thresholds, the mean p̂ .23). Short term memory abilities, visual processing abilities, perceptual speed, and lexical knowledge appeared to be positive correlates, though weaker (mean p̂ = .11, .11, .12, and .16, respectively). Tolerance displayed sizable, positive relations with several cognitive abilities (mean p̂ = .20), especially acquired knowledge constructs (mean .37). Innovation was positively related to visual processing abilities as well as lexical knowledge and general science knowledge (mean p̂ = .14, .13, and .10, respectively). Creative personality was a sizable, positive correlate of several cognitive abilities (mean p̂ = .24), especially verbal abilities and fluid abilities (mean p̂ = .32 and .18, respectively). Independent of conventions and others displayed small, positive relations with general mental ability and acquired knowledge constructs (p̂ = .13 and mean p̂ = .14, respectively). Resourcefulness was a sizable, positive correlate of several abilities (mean p̂ = .21), ranging from induction to free recall memory to visualization to perceptual speed to lexical knowledge (mean p̂ = .25, .23, .10, .27, and .35, respectively).

Higher Order Factors of the Big Five

The findings above cover the Big Five personality factors, their aspects, facets, and even compounds, but there are also meaningful personality constructs at higher levels of the personality hierarchy (see Chapter 2). Findings for higher order personality constructs are summarized below and in Figure 17. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 273–275 in Appendix I.

Meta-Trait Factor Alpha: Stability/Socialization

Factor alpha, which is also referred to as stability or socialization, is a higher order meta-trait that captures the variance shared between emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Individuals with high levels of factor alpha tend to focus on doing a lot of little things right to avoid large calamities. They also tend to function well in human society as safe, harmonious, and dependable people with low levels of antisocial tendencies (Stanek & Ones, 2018).

Results for factor alpha are summarized in Figure 17. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Table 274 in Appendix I.

The relations between the higher order trait of factor alpha/stability and cognitive ability constructs were much smaller in magnitude than what was observed for several of the neuroticism- and conscientiousness-related personality constructs. The general trend was toward negligible to very small, though positive, relations. Nevertheless, some modest, positive relations were found for fluid quantitative reasoning (p̂ = .12, N = 55,414, K = 17), memory span (p̂ = .11, N = 21,609, K = 18), working memory capacity (p̂ = .13, N = 7,370, K = 11), the long term storage and retrieval constructs free recall memory and word fluency (p̂ = .13 for both, N = 6,751 and 6,196, K = 5 and 14, respectively), and processing speed abilities (mean p̂ = .13). Much more sizable relations were found for acquired quantitative abilities (mean p̂ = .26, SDp̂ = .06 to .23) and reading comprehension (p̂= .40, SDp̂ = .00) (see Supplementary Table 274 in Appendix I). In general, factor alpha was not a notable, consistent correlate of most cognitive abilities, likely because of the divergent influences of its contributors’ relations with cognitive abilities.

Meta-Trait Factor Beta: Plasticity

Factor beta, which is also referred to as plasticity, is a higher order meta-trait that captures the shared variance between extraversion and openness. Individuals with high levels of factor beta tend to place bigger, riskier behavioral bets rather than consistently toiling for more sure, small gains. They see many interesting opportunities that could lead to success and are more willing to explore and pivot. Results for factor beta are summarized in Figure 17 and described below. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Table 275 in Appendix I.

Factor beta tended to be positively related to cognitive ability constructs, but its associated true standard deviations were relatively large in most instances. Its relations with cognitive abilities were generally smaller than those found for the intellect aspect and related facets of openness. General mental ability correlated .20 with factor beta (N = 22,759, K = 66). Relations with specific fluid abilities varied in magnitude (p̂ = .09 for induction and .18 for quantitative reasoning, N = 38,189 and 2,085, K = 78 and 11, respectively). The memory constructs ideational fluency and memory span both displayed small to moderate, positive, and, in the case of ideational fluency, variable relations. However, relatively small numbers of studies contributed to these meta-analyses, raising the specter of second-order sampling error (p̂ =.14 for both, SDp̂ = .16 and .04, N = 1,850 and 5,340, K = 7 and 4, respectively). Several acquired knowledge constructs displayed more positive and more consistent relations: mathematics achievement (p̂ = .32, SDp̂ = .10, N = 1,708, K = 2), verbal ability (p̂ = .28, SDp̂ = .11, N = 3,678, K = 16), native language usage (p̂ = .26, SDp̂ = .00, N = 1,356, K = 2), reading comprehension (p̂ = .23, SDp̂ = .09, N = 1,362, K = 2), lexical knowledge (p̂ = .21, SDp̂ = .18, N = 6,637, K = 16), mechanical knowledge (p̂ = .25, SDp̂ = .00, N = 1,777, K = 2), natural sciences knowledge (p̂ = .32, SDp̂ = n/a, N = 1,614, K = 1), and social studies knowledge (p̂ = .43, SDp̂ = .07, N = 1,934, K = 2). Plasticity appears to be a relevant personality trait for knowledge acquisition, though whether this is above and beyond the effects of extraversion and openness is not answerable with the present data.

General Factor of Personality

The general factor of personality sits at the apex of the Pan-Hierarchical Five Factor Model and represents individual differences in general self-evaluations. It may also indicate inter- and intra-personal integration (Davies et al., 2015; Stanek & Ones, 2018). Results for the general factor of personality are summarized in Figure 17 and described below. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Table 273 in Appendix I.

The general factor of personality correlated .36 with general mental ability. This relation reflects a cluster of general fitness traits associated with cybernetic effectiveness and the agility to move effectively between a focus on surviving and a focus on thriving, as the environment demands. Relations with most other abilities were based on sparse data and could not be used to derive robust conclusions. The few acquired knowledge abilities for which data were sufficient had negligible relations in the -.03 to .04 range. Research should examine the general factor of personality’s relations with other specific ability clusters (e.g., short term memory, retrieval fluency, and visual processing ability, in particular) since the existing, small amount of meta-analytic data was suggestive of modest-to-sizable relations.

Figure 17. Higher order personality traits correlate with cognitive abilities.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂ ) are only reported in black type when the number of independent effect sizes contributing the specific meta-analysis was ≥ 10 or the sample was ≥ 1,000 participants. Grey-filled cells had no usable data. Green-filled cells indicate positive effects, and red-filled cells indicate negative effects. Saturation indicates effect magnitude. Indentation of construct labels reflects the altitude of each trait in its respective construct hierarchy. Y-axis dendrogram further reinforces level of each ability in the abilities hierarchy.

Distillation of Personality’s Relations with Intelligence

In this chapter, we detailed evidence that personality’s relations with cognitive abilities extend beyond openness constructs. Nevertheless, openness is a sizable correlate of cognitive abilities, and its intellect aspect and associated facets (e.g., ideas) are even more strongly related. Among invested abilities, verbal abilities are more strongly related to openness’ intellect aspect than quantitative abilities. The experiencing aspect of openness is mostly unrelated to cognitive abilities, except for processing speed abilities and acquired verbal abilities as well as some domain specific knowledge constructs.

Neuroticism’s relations with cognitive abilities were somewhat unexpected. While past research has documented test anxiety as a negative correlate of cognitive abilities, we found broader enervating effects associated with neuroticism traits, including anxiety, uneven tempered, suspiciousness, and depression.

Previous meta-analytic research had reported unremarkable relations between extraversion traits and cognitive abilities (Anglim et al., 2022; Wolf & Ackerman, 2005). Our results were similar for overall extraversion, but the enhanced resolution of our database led to a more nuanced set of conclusions for extraversion’s lower-level traits and compounds that highlighted important relations. For example, the sociability facet is positively related to verbal abilities. Extraversion’s assertiveness aspect and associated dominance facet are positively related to long term memory’s retrieval constructs involving retrieval fluency. Most notably, extraversion’s activity facet is positively related to several retrieval fluency abilities, visual processing, processing speed abilities, and numerous acquired knowledge dimensions.

Previous meta-analytic research had reported similarly negligible-to-small relations between conscientiousness and cognitive abilities (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Anglim et al., 2022), but again, our results revealed some important relations. In particular, conscientiousness traits assessing industriousness and associated facets are positively, and sometimes substantially, related to cognitive abilities. In contrast, orderliness and the compound trait of routine seeking are negatively related.

Agreeableness traits are the weakest personality correlates of cognitive abilities, with mostly negligible relations, though the compassion and politeness aspects display opposite associations: compassion positive and politeness negative.

Taking a bird’s eye view of these findings, we are struck by the constellation of intellect, activity, industriousness, and low neuroticism forming a consistent set of cognitive ability correlates. These traits represent behavioral activation and proactivity, which are also resource-intensive tendencies. The strong relations for compound traits directly assessing the amalgam of these traits further reinforce this conclusion. Finally, we would be remiss if we did not note the intriguingly strong relation between general mental ability and general factor of personality.

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.

Anglim, J., Dunlop, P. D., Wee, S., Horwood, S., Wood, J. K., & Marty, A. (2022). Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 148(5–6), 301.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social Learning Theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall.

Bernreuter, R. G. (1935). Manual for the personality inventory. Stanford University Press.

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.

DeYoung, C. G. (2013). A psychobiological framework for personality neuroscience. http://deyoung.psych.umn.edu/research

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 825–858.

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.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., Peterson, J. B., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 46–52.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440.

Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168.

Gough, H. G. (1953). A nonintellectual intelligence test. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17(4), 242.

Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2002). 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.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 1013–1022.

Murray, A. L., Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2014). How are conscientiousness and cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 17–22.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity Tests and Other Criterion-Focused Occupational Personality Scales (COPS) Used in Personnel Selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 31–39.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 679.

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.

Tian, J. (2021). Comprehensive meta-analysis of perfectionism and a synthesis for Work Psychology [Doctor of Philosophy]. University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

von Stumm, S., & Ackerman, P. L. (2013). Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 841–869.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 46.

Wilmot, M. P., Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Ones, D. S. (2019). Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1447.

Wolf, M. B., & Ackerman, P. L. (2005). Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 531–542.