Chapter 4

How Cognitive Abilities Relate to Personality Traits

CHAPTER SUMMARY

1. Organizing the results according to cognitive ability dimensions offers a useful perspective.
2. General mental ability:
   1. Is most closely, positively, and generalizably associated with openness and compound personality traits involving emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness.
   2. May be a hallmark of general cybernetic effectiveness (i.e., general fitness) along with self esteem and general factor of personality. These characteristics are foundational individual differences for agile and effective surviving and thriving.
   3. Is lower among individuals who are depressed, anxious, uneven tempered, or suspicious.
   4. Correlates negatively and non-negligibly with agreeableness’ modesty facet.
3. Fluid abilities:
   1. Induction and quantitative reasoning have sizable, positive correlations with personality constructs associated with behavioral activation and proactivity.
   2. Are negatively related to the orderliness aspect of conscientiousness.
   3. Have differential patterns of relations with agreeableness and extraversion constructs, depending on the specific ability.
   4. Induction and quantitative reasoning specific abilities are both negatively related to depression and associated neuroticism facets.
   5. Show notably positive relations with openness, especially its intellect aspect, facets most related to intellect (i.e., need for cognition, ideas, and curiosity), and compound personality traits involving intellect (e.g., creative personality).
4. Short term memory abilities:
   1. Show consistent, small, positive relations with agreeableness and extraversion traits.
   2. Are negatively correlated with depression-related traits.
   3. Are related to openness traits, but relations vary by facet.
   4. Memory span and working memory capacity specific abilities have differing patterns of relations with conscientiousness constructs.
   5. Have modest, positive relations with compound personality traits reflecting variance from combinations of emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness.
5. Long term storage and retrieval abilities:
   1. Learning efficiency abilities are generally unrelated to personality traits.
   2. Retrieval fluency abilities are positively related to global extraversion and its aspects as well as to its dominance facet.
   3. Retrieval fluency abilities are negatively correlated with neuroticism facets depression, anxiety, and uneven tempered.
   4. Retrieval fluency abilities are positively related to self esteem.
   5. Several retrieval fluency abilities have negative, albeit weak, associations with conscientiousness’ cautiousness facet.
   6. Retrieval fluency abilities have relatively uniform, positive correlations with openness, as well as with its aspects and facets.
6. Visual processing abilities:
   1. Are consistent, positive correlates of the compound personality trait of rugged individualism.
   2. Show some modest, positive relations with compound personality traits that involve behavioral activation, drive, and proactivity.
   3. Are less related to neuroticism and its aspects and facets than are other major ability constructs, including fluid abilities.
   4. The specific ability visualization is a mild, negative correlate of the modesty facet of agreeableness.
   5. Are more closely related to the intellect aspect and associated facets of openness than its experiencing aspect and associated facets.
7. Processing speed abilities:
   1. Display positive relations with industriousness as well as with the orderliness aspect of conscientiousness.
   2. Are negatively related to uneven tempered, suspiciousness, depression, and anxiety facets of neuroticism.
   3. Tend to correlate positively with the agreeableness facet cooperation.
   4. Are related to the factor alpha meta-trait and stress tolerance compound trait.
   5. Are positively related to extraversion facets sociability and activity.
   6. Specific processing speed abilities are consistently, homogenously, and positively related to self esteem.
   7. Specific processing speed abilities also positively relate to ambition.
   8. May correlate positively with openness’ experiencing aspect at a similar or stronger magnitude than its intellect aspect.
8. Acquired knowledge:
   1. Across dimensions of acquired knowledge, activity was a substantial positive correlate.
   2. Ambition was a positive correlate of quantitative and verbal acquired abilities.
   3. Quantitative abilities appear to have negative associations with all Big Five personality factors, except openness.
   4. Mathematics achievement correlates negligibly with the Big Five personality factors at the global level, though it correlates positively with proactive tendencies (e.g., self esteem, internal locus of control, and ambition).
   5. Verbal abilities are negatively and substantially related to the uneven tempered and suspiciousness facets of neuroticism.
   6. Verbal abilities generally relate positively and substantially to conscientiousness’ industriousness aspect and order facet.
   7. Verbal abilities are positively related to extraversion’s sociability.
   8. Comprehension knowledge verbal abilities correlate more strongly with the facets aligned with the intellect aspect of openness than with the facets aligned with its experiencing aspect.
   9. Domain specific knowledge is positively related to openness, but magnitudes of relations are inconsistent.
   10. Domain specific knowledge has small to negligible associations with global neuroticism.

The relations between cognitive abilities and personality traits are not limited to general mental ability and openness. Instead, several other cognitive abilities show relations with personality traits that are of even greater magnitude. These relations are likely the result of neuro-biological networks that drive mechanical models of information processing. The meta-analyses in this book focus on the manifestations of these models as measured by psychometric cognitive ability tests and personality assessments.

This chapter describes our meta-analytic findings for how cognitive abilities relate to personality traits. We organize findings around the Stanek and Ones (2018) Unified CHC cognitive abilities taxonomy. Definitions of each cognitive ability construct and personality trait may be found in Appendices A and C. By reviewing findings from the perspective of cognitive abilities, we hope that intelligence researchers will come to recognize abilities that are linked to personality and understand the importance of ability-personality clusters in psychological research and applications.

We first present non-invested abilities, including domain-independent general capacities: fluid abilities, short term memory, long term storage abilities, and long term retrieval abilities. Next, we report sensory-motor domain specific abilities of visual processing and auditory processing abilities. Finally, empirical relations with the speed abilities of reaction and decision speed as well as processing speed are discussed. For each of these ability clusters, we present and describe results for specific abilities that constitute the higher order primary abilities (e.g., induction, general sequential reasoning, and quantitative reasoning for fluid abilities).

We then turn to invested abilities involving acquired knowledge: verbal abilities, quantitative abilities, and domain specific knowledge. For verbal abilities, we distinguish between reading and writing abilities and comprehension knowledge abilities. For quantitative abilities, we distinguish between mathematics knowledge and mathematics achievement. For domain specific knowledge, we delineate sub-dimensions by content (e.g., social science knowledge vs. mechanical knowledge). For each major acquired knowledge ability, we also report and discuss findings for its specific abilities (e.g., reading comprehension within reading and writing, lexical knowledge within comprehension knowledge).

We close by describing findings for general mental ability, and in tables we also report findings for compound ability measures that combine multiple specific abilities (e.g., fluid ability and visual processing).

Tables reporting full meta-analytic results for cognitive abilities are presented in Supplementary Tables 3–99 (see Appendix G in the online supplementary materials). These tables provide uncorrected correlations as well as those corrected for unreliability. None of the meta-analyses presented have applied range restriction corrections. Each table is devoted to a distinct cognitive ability (e.g., induction) and its associations with the full set of personality variables examined. The indentation of each construct name within the table reflects the altitude of each trait (e.g., factor, aspect, facet).

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

Overviews of results are visualized in Figures 7 through 11. In these visualizations, p̂ estimates (i.e., meta-analytic correlations) are 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. Otherwise, the estimates are in grey type. 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 findings, we highlight the main findings and trends rather than noting every single meta-analytic relation examined. We encourage readers who are interested in certain abilities, primary and specific, to examine the detailed results tables.

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)

Non-Invested Abilities and Personality

Domain Independent General Capacities

Fluid Abilities

Fluid abilities involve solving unfamiliar problems that demand abstract reasoning rather than prior knowledge. Specific fluid abilities include induction, general sequential reasoning, and quantitative reasoning. Induction focuses on identifying underlying rules/patterns, while general sequential reasoning emphasizes applying known rules to draw conclusions (Stanek & Ones, 2018). As a set, these abilities are likely involved in multiple adaptive psycho-social, cognitive, and behavioral strategies that contribute to general fitness in modern environments. Specific fluid abilities can be involved in both ensuring stability and promoting change, potentially highlighting functional and/or developmental pathways.

Figure 7 summarizes results for fluid abilities. 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 4–7 (see Appendix G).

Figure 7. Domain independent general capacities correlate with personality traits.

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.

Induction and quantitative reasoning have sizable, positive correlations with the Big Five factors, facets, and compound personality constructs associated with behavioral activation and proactivity. Among fluid abilities, induction had the largest positive relations with personality attributes of behavioral activation. Such traits include internal locus of control1 (p̂ = .20, N = 14,820, K = 24), self esteem2 (p̂ = .13, N = 420,227, K = 133), creative personality3 (p̂ = .21, N = 3,264, K = 11), and achievement via independence4 (p̂ = .24, N = 4,867, K = 22).5 The latter two correlates of induction also reflect the intellect aspect of openness in addition to extraversion and conscientiousness (primarily the achievement facet), but the relation with creative personality was not generalizable (lower CV = -.07). Induction was also substantially related to compound personality traits that had elements of high extraversion and conscientiousness alongside low neuroticism. For example, induction correlated .13 with the industriousness aspect of conscientiousness and .14 with the activity facet of extraversion (N = 450,608 and 388,190, K = 73 and 87, respectively). Overall, individuals who have strong induction capabilities tend to be behaviorally and emotionally positively activated. Specifically, they are active and industrious. They also have higher self esteem and internal locus of control.6 Finally, they tend to achieve most in unstructured situations that allow for individual initiative and freedom rather than situations requiring that set procedures be followed. These clusters of traits correspond to a “high-energy” setting in individuals that is likely best suited to resource-rich environments.

While general sequential reasoning was much less related to these personality constructs than induction, there were two entirely different personality traits that related positively and generalizably to general sequential reasoning. The non manipulative facet of agreeableness and compound trait of cold efficiency7 correlated .13 and .14 with general sequential reasoning, respectively (N = 2,254 and 7,630, K = 18 and 25). Individuals who score high on general sequential reasoning appear to be principled, logical, and rational as well as not typically deceitful or deceptive. Knowing that general sequential reasoning measures deductive abilities provides insight into the cool, direct, and methodical problem-solving function of this cluster of traits.

Quantitative reasoning’s relations mirrored those of induction rather than general sequential reasoning. The enthusiasm aspect and activity facet of extraversion, as well as some of the same high extraversion, high conscientiousness, and low neuroticism compound traits (e.g., self esteem,8 internal locus of control,9 and optimism10), correlated positively and generalizably with quantitative reasoning (mean11 p̂ = .17, range = .10 to .21, N range = 16,902 to 52,212, K range = 16 to 34). In addition, quantitative reasoning’s positive association with rugged individualism12 was also indicative of the same personality trait amalgam (p̂ = .15, N = 10,822, K = 16). Finally, quantitative reasoning’s positive associations with both factor beta13 (p̂ = .18, N = 2,085, K = 11) and factor alpha14 (p̂ = .12, N = 55,414, K = 17) likely capture the same core, proactive variance shared across the personality constructs of extraversion, conscientiousness, and (low) neuroticism.

Overall, these meta-analytic findings substantiate a set of personality traits associated with induction and quantitative reasoning that drive behavioral activation and pursuit of development and growth to support the capacity of individuals for change and self-evolution. Put differently, those who are more likely to take action and have the ability to identify and apply patterns tend to be able to change themselves more to fit changing environments. In contrast, those higher on deductive general sequential reasoning may achieve the same goals with cool and earnest methodicalness.

Fluid abilities are negatively related to the orderliness aspect of conscientiousness. Orderliness encompasses organization, caution, discipline, and precision, whereas order focuses more narrowly on planning and organization (Stanek & Ones, 2018). All specific fluid abilities were similarly related to orderliness. Induction correlated -.12 with orderliness and -.21 with routine seeking15 (N = 199,564 and 5,030, K = 113 and 16, respectively). General sequential reasoning correlated -.12 with order and -.14 with cautiousness (N = 8,685 and 12,720, K = 36 and 38, respectively). Quantitative reasoning correlated -.17 with orderliness and -.16 with judging-perceiving,16 a compound attribute that can be described as a desire for definiteness or a preference for structure versus flexibility (N = 77,752 and 6,012, K = 21 and 9, respectively). A few exceptions notwithstanding, the consistent pattern and magnitude of these relations indicates that individuals who are high on fluid abilities might be better equipped to handle disorder well, particularly lack of routine, lack of plans/protocols, and disorganization. That is, as proposed by the compensation hypothesis (Moutafi et al., 2004), individuals with higher fluid ability may not need the structure and scaffolding produced by orderliness-related traits to self-regulate toward goal states. Another interpretation of orderliness-related traits’ negative relations with fluid abilities involves their differential functional foci: fluid abilities may best support change-focused strategies whereas orderliness (aspect) and order (facet) may best support stability-focused strategies. Their negative association points to a trait complex that suggests a compensatory mechanism built upon the trade-off between change and stability.

Different fluid abilities relate to different agreeableness and extraversion constructs. For induction and quantitative reasoning, relations with agreeableness and extraversion were mildly negative. Induction correlated -.12 with the politeness aspect and -.11 with the tender mindedness facet of agreeableness (N = 73,945 and 28,968, K = 11 and 62, respectively). Quantitative reasoning displayed a negative relation with the agreeableness-related compound trait warmth17 as well as the sociability facet of extraversion (p̂ = -.12 and -.13, N = 82,733 and 84,335, K = 24 and 44, respectively). In contrast, general sequential reasoning was mostly unrelated to agreeableness and extraversion constructs. As noted above, an exception was a positive correlation with the non manipulative facet of agreeableness (p̂ = .13, N = 2,254, K = 18), which may be useful for maintaining self in social environments. This relation is consistent with general sequential reasoning’s broader role in following/applying rules to aid self-preservation.

Specific fluid abilities induction and quantitative reasoning are both negatively related to depression and associated neuroticism facets. Induction correlated -.13 with neuroticism constructs depression, negative affect, and withdrawal (see Supplementary Tables 4–7 in Appendix G). Quantitative reasoning correlated -.25 with the depression facet of neuroticism (N = 51,201, K = 24, CV = -.12 to -.38). All of these relations were generalizable. Data were sparse for general sequential reasoning, but they also suggested the same negative relations. It may be that depression detracts from these specific fluid reasoning abilities (e.g., when psychological stability cannot be maintained and emotional dysregulation interferes with effective reasoning) or that individuals who are lower on these fluid abilities have greater proclivity to be depressed (e.g., when lower fluid abilities are not sufficient to regulate emotions). Evolution offers a less pathological explanation. It may be that when survival is the goal and the environment is resource-scarce or unsupportive, traits that correspond to low energy usage (e.g., depression, lower fluid reasoning) may actually be adaptive.

Like most abilities, fluid abilities show notable, positive relations with openness, especially its intellect aspect and associated facets (i.e., need for cognition, ideas, and curiosity) as well as compound personality traits involving it. Induction had a mean meta-analytic correlation of .17 with the intellect aspect and aligned facets of openness. The corresponding mean meta-analytic correlations for general sequential reasoning and quantitative reasoning were .21 and .19, respectively. In contrast, a few other traits that are more closely aligned with openness’ experiencing aspect rather than its intellect aspect showed small, negative relations (e.g., aesthetics with quantitative reasoning [p̂ = -.15, N = 73,152, K = 8], tolerance18 with general sequential reasoning [p̂ = -.09, N = 7,491, K = 29], and experiencing with quantitative reasoning [p̂ = -.07, N = 3,402, K = 11]). This constellation of traits may energize the individual to change by identifying that change is needed and activating mechanisms to reason out what actions to take.

Short Term Memory Abilities

Short term memory involves encoding, maintaining, and manipulating information in immediate awareness (McGrew et al., 2014). Sub-dimensions include memory span, working memory capacity, attentional executive control, and meaningful memory. Short term memory abilities’ relations with personality variables have not been previously meta-analyzed, and the results presented here indicate positive associations with interpersonal traits from the agreeableness and especially extraversion domains as well as negative associations with depression-related traits.

Figure 7 summarizes results for short term memory constructs. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 24–27 (see Appendix G).

Short term memory abilities show consistent, small, positive relations with agreeableness and extraversion traits. Both agreeableness and extraversion are interpersonal traits. Agreeableness and its facets tender mindedness and non manipulative correlated in the .10 to .11 range with memory span. Relations with some extraversion traits were somewhat stronger. Memory span correlated .17 with extraversion’s enthusiasm aspect (N = 43,618, K = 32), .13 with its activity facet (N = 379,981, K = 19), .12 with its positive emotionality facet (N = 5,805, K = 20), and .12 with its sociability facet (N = 364,141, K = 23).

Working memory capacity echoed the positive associations between memory span and both extraversion and agreeableness. Its correlations were positive and homogenous with compound personality traits involving extraversion, agreeableness, or both, such as optimism19 (p̂ = .13, N = 10,828, K = 7, SD .00), trust20 (p̂ = .17, N = 941, K = 11, SD .00), and openness to emotions21 (p̂ = .10, N = 1,109, K = 12, SD .00). The consistency of these relations is remarkable. Working memory capacity also correlated .14 with enthusiasm (N = 63,416, K = 23). One puzzling null finding, however, involved warmth,22 which only correlated .05 (N = 8,840, K = 18) with working memory capacity.

There may be several explanations for the generally modest, but positive and consistent, associations between short term memory constructs and compound personality constructs involving extraversion and agreeableness. For example, having a greater memory span may facilitate the demonstration of extraverted and agreeable behaviors and tendencies by allowing individuals to actively engage with others, remember names of group members, or echo someone else’s emotional frame of mind. Alternatively, extraverts and those high on agreeableness may invest more time and effort into developing their memory span to facilitate engagement with other people. Either way, the function of this trait complex is likely to maintain the individual in social environments.

Short term memory abilities are negatively correlated with depressive personality traits. Most abilities’ relations with neuroticism, especially its withdrawal aspect and depression facet, tended to be negative. This was also true for short term memory. Memory span correlated -.19 (N = 46,779, K = 36) with the depression facet and -.12 (N = 12,475, K = 8) with the withdrawal aspect of neuroticism. Memory span’s relation with the uneven tempered facet of neuroticism was also negative and sizable (p̂ = -.17, N = 371,911, K = 32). Memory span correlated -.27 with the suspiciousness facet of neuroticism, though only seven samples were available to examine this correlation (N = 2,300). Remarkably, neither memory span nor working memory capacity related strongly to the anxiety facet of neuroticism (p̂ = -.05 and -.09, N = 8,434 and 8,552, K = 31 and 25, respectively). Paralleling results for memory span, the depression facet and withdrawal aspect of neuroticism were also notable, negative correlates of working memory capacity (p̂ = -.19 and -.14, N = 52,223 and 11,494, K = 18 and 11, respectively). In contrast, the uneven tempered facet was not (p̂ = -.05, N = 2,930, K = 17). This constellation of short term memory abilities and depressive personality traits suggests potentially pathological psychological instability involving withdrawal of cognitive resources from short term memory storage and retrieval alongside psychological disengagement. Such a trait constellation can be an adaptive low-energy strategy for coping with unsupportive or resource-poor environments.

Short term memory is related to openness traits, but relations vary by facet. Memory span and working memory capacity both correlated positively with global openness (p̂ = .19 and .12, N = 37,229 and 15,245, K = 61 and 36, respectively). Their relations with the ideas facet were also positive and of similar magnitude (p̂ = .19 and .25, N = 2,471 and 1,626, K = 19 and 15, respectively). Memory span’s relation with the experiencing aspect of openness was also of similar magnitude (p̂ = .22, N = 365,232, K = 12). Yet relations were negligible or much smaller with the facets associated with the experiencing aspect of openness: .00 with fantasy, .07 with aesthetics, -.04 with non traditional, and .10 with variety seeking (see Supplementary Tables 24–27 in Appendix G). A similar, but not identical, pattern of results emerged for working memory capacity. Working memory capacity’s relations were .12 with global openness, .25 with the ideas facet, and .16 with need for cognition, the latter two being indicators of the intellect aspect of openness (see Supplementary Tables 24–27 in Appendix G). Working memory capacity’s relations were somewhat weaker for indicators of the experiencing aspect of openness: .15 with fantasy, and .11 with aesthetics (N = 1,090 and 1,079, K = 12 and 12, respectively). Relations with non traditional and variety seeking facets tended toward positive but negligible (p̂ = .08 for both, N = 3,528 and 2,923, K = 15 and 19, respectively).

Short term memory abilities of memory span and working memory capacity have differing patterns of relations with conscientiousness constructs. Memory span’s relations with conscientiousness were positive and varied by conscientiousness facet. Its relations with the industriousness aspect, as well as dependability and order facets, were in the .15 to .21 range, whereas its relations with other conscientiousness facets (e.g., achievement, persistence, cautiousness) were much smaller, in the -.04 to .09 range. Surprisingly, working memory capacity’s relations with conscientiousness constructs were negligible to small in magnitude (p̂ = -.01 to .08). Short term memory abilities’ positive relations with some conscientiousness constructs may signal their co-functioning for maintenance of self in the environment (i.e., ability to maintain homeostasis despite changing circumstances).

Short term memory has modest, positive relations with compound personality traits reflecting variance from emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness trait combinations. Such a finding was unsurprising since emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness also display small but persistent positive relations with short term memory constructs. Memory span related to both self esteem23 and internal locus of control24 (p̂ = .15 and .13, N = 390,216 and 84,015, K = 40 and 42, respectively). Working memory capacity correlated .07 and .11 with self esteem and internal locus of control (N = 8,496 and 61,986, K = 16 and 19, respectively). Lastly, the meta-trait factor alpha25 also related positively though modestly to both memory span and working memory capacity (p̂ = .11 and .13, N = 21,609 and 7,370, K = 18 and 11, respectively). Considering the meaning of its constituent traits and abilities, this constellation of associated individual differences reflects adaptability—a general fitness for both self-preservation and change.

Long Term Storage & Retrieval Abilities

Long term memory involves two clusters of abilities: learning efficiency and retrieval fluency. Learning efficiency refers to the processing and storage of information beyond immediate awareness/working memory. Learning efficiency sub-dimensions include associative memory, meaningful memory, episodic memory, free recall memory, and long term visual memory. Retrieval fluency refers to the ability to access information stored in long term memory. Retrieval fluency sub-dimensions include abilities related to the production of ideas (e.g., expressional fluency), word retrieval (e.g., word fluency), and figural fluency (i.e., figural fluency). In a comprehensive meta-analysis, Kostal (2019) found evidence that these two ability clusters are distinct, supporting the call of Schneider and McGrew (2018) and Stanek and Ones (2018) for their distinction as primary abilities.

The current meta-analytic results also help clarify questions regarding the taxonomic structure of cognitive abilities. For example, Schneider and McGrew (2012) classified free recall memory as part of the learning efficiency cluster within long term storage and retrieval but, the pattern of relations observed in the current meta-analyses indicates that this ability may nomologically be part of the retrieval fluency cluster.

Figure 7 summarizes results for long term storage and retrieval constructs. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 9–23 (see Appendix G).

Relations of learning efficiency and retrieval fluency with personality constructs were markedly different from one another. Notwithstanding the few exceptions noted below, learning efficiency abilities were mostly unrelated to personality constructs. In contrast, retrieval fluency abilities had substantial, positive links with personality traits.

Individuals higher on retrieval fluency abilities tended to be higher on extraversion’s dominance facet, assertiveness and enthusiasm aspects, self esteem,26 and openness traits as well as lower on conscientiousness’ cautiousness facet and neuroticism’s depression, anxiety, and uneven tempered facets. These findings repeat a pattern observed across many abilities: positive relations between cognitive abilities and personality traits associated with initiating adaptation to the environment as well as growth in individual complexity. Put differently, individuals who can come up with many ideas, are confident in themselves, and are socially driven tend to see many possibilities, which fuels their inner growth and their ability to fit with their environment.

Learning efficiency abilities are generally unrelated to personality traits. This was true for overall measures of learning efficiency as well as associative memory, meaningful memory, and long term visual memory. While relations hovered between -.06 and .06 for many personality constructs examined with these abilities, two sets of exceptions stood out.27 First, associative memory, meaningful memory, and episodic memory were all positively and notably correlated with openness (p̂ = .22, .23, and .11, respectively; Supplementary Tables 9–23 in Appendix G). Second, episodic memory displayed mild, positive relations with agreeableness and conscientiousness (p̂ = .11 and .12, N = 3,674 and 3,671, K = 6 and 6, respectively). Associative memory had inconsistent relations with conscientiousness-related constructs: it correlated -.11 with conscientiousness but .13 with the internal locus of control compound trait28 (N = 3,085 and 17,892, K = 5 and 3, respectively). Given the small number of primary studies contributing to these meta-analytic estimates, we refrain from drawing firm conclusions from these exceptions to the pattern of generally negligible relations between learning efficiency and personality.

Retrieval fluency abilities are positively related to global extraversion as well as its aspects and dominance facet. This constellation of associated traits and abilities reflects activation for change and ideation of potential next steps for action. Retrieval fluency and its components ideational fluency, associational fluency, expressional fluency, originality and creativity, naming facility and speed of lexical access, and word fluency all had positive, though modest, relations with global extraversion (p̂ = .13, .16, .10, .08, .12, .08, and .07, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 9–23 in Appendix G). However, for some of these relations, associated SDp̂s were large enough to result in wide credibility value ranges (see Supplementary Tables 9–23 in Appendix G). A more fine-grained examination of extraversion’s links to retrieval fluency measures was thus needed to help clarify the nature of these relations.

Results indicated that the enthusiasm aspect of extraversion was a consistent, positive correlate of several retrieval fluency abilities centered on verbal retrieval. These abilities included associational fluency, naming facility and speed of lexical access, and word fluency (p̂ = .18, .18, and .15, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 9–23 in Appendix G). Data were more sparse for the assertiveness aspect but indicated a similar pattern (mean p̂ = .13). In addition, extraversion’s dominance facet consistently displayed relatively homogenous, positive relations with retrieval fluency abilities: .16 with ideational fluency, .14 with expressional fluency, .14 with word fluency, .09 with associational fluency, and .09 with originality and creativity (see Supplementary Tables 9–23 in Appendix G). For both ideational fluency as well as originality and creativity, relations with most extraversion facets were positive and modest to sizeable (e.g., p̂ = .25 and .20 for relations with activity, N = 3,788 and 361,957, K = 6 and 9, respectively). One clear conclusion is that retrieval fluency abilities are not independent of extraversion constructs. These relations were not identified in previous meta-analyses, which were based on smaller amounts of data and less precise construct taxonomies.

Retrieval fluency abilities are negatively correlated with neuroticism facets depression, anxiety, and uneven tempered. The covariance of depression, anxiety, and uneven tempered with retrieval fluency abilities was evident. Where sufficient data were available, robust and negative relations were detected. Retrieval fluency abilities of naming facility and speed of lexical access, free recall memory, ideational fluency, and word fluency correlated negatively with neuroticism’s depression facet (p̂ = -.22, -.17, -.13, and -.10, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 9–23 in Appendix G). Anxiety correlated -.10 and -.11 with ideational fluency and word fluency (N = 5,507 and 1,477, K = 12 and 12, respectively). In addition, originality and creativity ability had a substantial, negative correlation with the uneven tempered facet of neuroticism (p̂ = -.25, N = 363,640, K = 12). Withdrawal had substantial relations similar to these facets (mean p̂ = -.13). In other words, individuals who are higher on retrieval fluency appear also to be less depressed, withdrawn, anxious, and uneven tempered. The negative relations between retrieval fluency abilities and these neuroticism traits reflects a fitness function for achieving psychological stability and internal homeostasis. In other words, when stability is the adaptive goal, the ability to generate many original ideas is less useful and tendencies to worry or withdraw are more useful.

Retrieval fluency abilities are positively related to self esteem. As we previously noted, self esteem is a compound personality trait that incorporates variance from both emotional stability and extraversion, along with conscientiousness. Notable relations of retrieval fluency abilities with extraversion and emotional stability were noted above. It was therefore not surprising that meta-analytic results showed positive relations between self esteem and several retrieval fluency abilities. Specifically, originality and creativity, expressional fluency, ideational fluency, word fluency, and associational fluency all had positive correlations with self esteem (p̂ = .22, .18, .12, .10, and .09, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 9–23 in Appendix G). In all these cases, there was little variation in the size of these relations for each set of effect sizes. That is, self esteem’s positive association with retrieval fluency abilities appeared to be quite homogenous for each meta-analysis.

Several retrieval fluency abilities have negative, albeit weak, associations with conscientiousness’ cautiousness facet. Although conscientiousness constructs were mostly independent of retrieval fluency abilities, cautiousness stood out as a negative, albeit weak, correlate. Ideational fluency, originality and creativity, as well as expressional fluency correlated -.09 to -.12 with cautiousness. Such associations may reflect several potential developmental possibilities: the lower inhibitions associated with low cautiousness may assist in the development of retrieval abilities, higher cautiousness may inhibit development or utilization of retrieval abilities, high retrieval abilities may reduce cautiousness, and low retrieval abilities may encourage cautiousness. More than one of these causal explanations could even act at the same time, all avenues future research could pursue.

Retrieval fluency abilities have relatively uniform, positive correlations with openness, as well as its aspects and facets. This constellation of associated traits and abilities encapsulates characteristics for behavioral activation for change. The mean meta-analytic correlation between retrieval fluency and the openness factor, aspects, and facets (regardless of N or K) was .19. Using the same method for the broader set of openness-related traits (see Figures 25 and 26 in Chapter 8 for lists),29 similar mean meta-analytic correlations were found for specific abilities: free recall memory (p̂ = .19), ideational fluency (p̂ = .16), associational fluency (p̂ = .16), word fluency (p̂ = .16), expressional fluency (p̂ = .15), and originality and creativity (p̂ = .14). There did not appear to be particularly notable differences between how openness’ intellect and experiencing aspects and their associated facets related to retrieval fluency abilities, as credibility value ranges overlapped. Since judging/perceiving is a compound personality attribute that includes variance from both low openness and high conscientiousness, it was not surprising that it correlated negatively with several retrieval fluency abilities (p̂ = -.17 for expressional fluency, -.12 for associational fluency, and -.13 for ideational fluency but only -.07 for originality and creativity; see Supplementary Tables 9–23 in Appendix G).

Sensory-Motor Domain Specific Abilities

Visual Processing Abilities

Visual processing abilities revolve around the ability to simulate mental imagery to solve problems. This cluster of abilities has also been referred to as spatial ability in the literature. It includes specific abilities such as closure speed and spatial scanning. Visualization scales (e.g., shape rotation) appear to be the best markers for visual processing abilities (Carroll, 1993; Kostal, 2019).

Figure 8 summarizes results for visual processing constructs. Complete, detailed results of results are presented in Supplementary Tables 28–34 (see Appendix G).

Figure 8. Sensory-motor domain specific abilities correlate with personality traits.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂) are only reported in black type when 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.

Visual processing abilities are consistent, positive correlates of the compound personality trait of rugged individualism. Rugged individualism30 has traditionally been referred to as masculinity in the personality literature, because it refers to traits stereotypically associated with males, such as adventurousness, competitiveness, and preferences for exploration and independence. Across specific visual processing abilities, regardless of N or K, the mean meta-analytic correlation with rugged individualism was .12, which has not previously been noted. Visualization specifically correlated .14 with rugged individualism (N = 7,148, K = 19). It is well known that, among all cognitive abilities, visual processing abilities show the largest sex differences (Kell & Lubinski, 2013; Lubinski & Benbow, 1992; Reilly & Neumann, 2013). Their positive relations with rugged individualism provide evidence of a complex of sex-related personality attributes and visual processing abilities, further suggesting sex-based developmental trajectories.

Visual processing abilities display some modest, positive relations with compound personality traits that involve behavioral activation, drive, and proactivity. As previously discussed, tendencies toward behavioral activation, drive, and proactivity involve low neuroticism, high extraversion, and conscientiousness. Although data were sparse, there were several relations supportive of a positive link between visual processing abilities and compounds of these traits. Visualization correlated with self esteem31 .12 (N = 397,889, K = 42). Spatial scanning correlated with locus of control32 .16 (N = 21,594, K = 11). The mean meta-analytic correlation between all visual processing abilities and achievement via independence33 was .22. While neither extraversion nor conscientiousness by themselves were notable correlates of visual processing abilities, both (low) neuroticism and (high) openness were (see below).

Visual processing abilities are more weakly related to neuroticism and its aspects and facets than other major ability constructs, including fluid abilities. All relations with neuroticism traits were negative but weaker than those found for other abilities. Therefore, visual processing does not appear to play a central role in conferring psychological stability. Neuroticism facets depression, uneven tempered, and suspiciousness all correlated -.11 to -.12 with visualization (see Supplementary Tables 28–34 in Appendix G). These relations were quite homogeneous, with associated SDp̂s between .03 and .07. Relations between other visual processing abilities and neuroticism constructs were of similar magnitudes, but small numbers of effect sizes and/or sample sizes constrained definitive conclusions. The mean meta-analytic correlation between all visual processing abilities and the neuroticism factor, aspects, and facets was -.08 (regardless of N or K), similar to some other primary ability clusters (e.g., -.14 with fluid abilities, -.12 with processing speed abilities).34

Visualization has a mild, negative correlation with the modesty facet of agreeableness. Visual processing abilities in general, and visualization in particular, were mostly uncorrelated with agreeableness, its aspects, and its facets. Relations were nil, negligibly small, or heterogeneous enough to produce credibility value ranges that contained 0. However, one agreeableness facet stood out as a homogenous, if humble, negative correlate of visualization: modesty (p̂ = -.12, N = 970, K = 11). A similar correlation was also observed for the general visual processing construct (p̂ = -.11, N = 1,225, K = 10).

Visual processing abilities are more closely related to the intellect aspect and associated facets of openness than its experiencing aspect and associated facets. As noted above, visual processing abilities are less related to openness traits compared to other major abilities. Nonetheless, differential relations with openness constructs were found. Visual processing abilities and intellect aspect traits’ relations reflect a functional cluster for cognitive exploration to identify and initiate adaptations to the environment. Visualization correlated .20 with intellect as well as .24 with the ideas and .21 with curiosity facets (see Supplementary Tables 28–34 in Appendix G). In contrast, visualization correlated just .02 with experiencing (N = 368,387, K = 28), .00 with introspection (N = 73,135, K = 10), .09 with fantasy (N = 2,599, K = 22), -.09 with aesthetics (N = 74,525, K = 24), .10 with non traditional (N = 16,742, K = 41), and .04 with variety seeking (N = 2,539, K = 17). The positive pairing of visualization with ideas and curiosity highlights an externally oriented trait complex, since both are directed at environmental cues. The same pattern held for closure speed and flexibility of closure, even though the number of contributing effect sizes and the sample sizes were much smaller. For example, the mean correlation across all meta-analytic estimates for intellect and associated facets with closure speed was .15, whereas the corresponding value for the experiencing aspect and aligned facets35 was .04.

Auditory Processing Abilities, Psychomotor Abilities, and Psychomotor Speed Abilities

Auditory processing encapsulates abilities related to hearing and deciphering auditory signals. Our meta-analytic database for auditory processing was very sparse. Auditory processing abilities, psychomotor abilities, and psychomotor speed abilities36 were only included in the meta-analyses reported here in an exploratory manner if they were encountered during searches for materials with other cognitive abilities. Therefore, we are not able to reach generalizable conclusions about the nature of relations between auditory processing abilities and personality traits. Based on the available information, negative relations with neuroticism facets and positive relations with openness-related traits were suggested.

Figures 8 and 9 summarize results. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 35, 81–84, and 85–86, respectively (see Appendix G).

Speed Abilities

Processing Speed Abilities

Processing speed abilities involve the ability to perform relatively simple, mostly perception-based, repetitive tasks quickly and accurately. Specific abilities that are part of this primary ability are perceptual speed (including complex perceptual speed, scanning, and pattern recognition), reading speed, and number facility. Processing speed abilities present a nomological network with personality traits that is quite distinct from other primary abilities. Processing speed abilities had positive relations with conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness, highlighting a complex of traits focused more on preserving homeostasis than pursuing change.

Figure 9 summarizes results for processing speed abilities. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 36–40 (see Appendix G).

Figure 9. Speed abilities correlate with personality traits.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂) are only reported in black type when 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.

Processing speed abilities relate similarly and positively to the industriousness aspect as well as the order facet of conscientiousness. Perceptual speed correlated with industriousness (p̂ = .17, N = 367,829, K = 34, SDp̂ = .03, CV = .14 to .21), persistence (p̂ = .15, N = 2,262, K = 17, SDp̂ = .00, CV = .15 to .15), and order (p̂ = .20, N = 362,327, K = 22, SDp̂ = .00, CV = .20 to .20). Scanning correlated .15 with industriousness (N = 434,549, K = 8, SDp̂ = .00, CV = .15 to .15). Number facility correlated .13 with orderliness (N = 2,642, K = 9, SDp̂ = .00, CV = .13 to .13). For all these relations, the associated variability was extremely small, and relations were generalizable. Number facility also had a generalizable, positive correlation of .25 with global conscientiousness (N = 34,605, K = 21, CV = .02 to .47). These findings indicate a stronger link between processing abilities and conscientiousness-related traits, especially for its industriousness aspect and order facet, than most other non-invested/non-crystallized abilities. This constellation of associated traits and abilities may contribute to individuals’ general subsistence by helping them accomplish goals through adherence to principles, paying attention to details, and by following set procedures and routines.

Processing speed abilities are negatively related to uneven tempered, suspiciousness, depression, and anxiety facets of neuroticism. This constellation of traits confers psychological stability. Processing abilities had negligible to weak, negative correlations with global neuroticism but somewhat stronger relations with the trait’s facets. For example, global neuroticism was a mild but consistent negative correlate of scanning, pattern recognition, and number facility (mean p̂ = -.11, p̂ range = -.11 to -.10, N range = 7,884 to 100,600, K range = 6 to 45). Relations with some neuroticism facets were somewhat stronger. For example, the suspiciousness facet of neuroticism consistently related to processing speed abilities (mean p̂ = -.16, range = -.22 to -.07 regardless of N or K). Processing abilities for which sufficient data were available also correlated negatively and similarly with the uneven tempered facet of neuroticism (mean p̂ = -.17, p̂ range = -.18 to -.15, N range = 362,127 to 434,318, K range = 12 to 42). Number facility correlated -.17 with the depression facet of neuroticism (N = 4,953, K = 8), but depression correlated only -.04, -.09, and -.06 with other processing speed abilities of perceptual speed, scanning, and pattern recognition, respectively (N = 6,530, 10,410, and 8,052, K = 21, 10, and 2). Scanning and number facility abilities correlated -.10 and -.13 with anxiety, respectively (N = 72,705 and 695, K = 8 and 7), yet perceptual speed was unrelated to anxiety (p̂ = .00, N = 5,912, K = 28). The dearth of relations between processing speed abilities and neuroticism facets precludes robust identification of generalizable links between these abilities and this part of the personality domain. Nonetheless, the conclusion that individuals who score higher on processing speed abilities tend to be slightly more even tempered, less suspicious, less depressed, and less neurotic is indicated by the available data.

Processing speed abilities tend to correlate positively with the agreeableness facets cooperation and lack of aggression. This constellation of traits is functional for maintaining self in the social environment. Perceiving stimuli (e.g., faces) quickly and accurately can enhance cooperation and reduce aggression. Lower aggression and higher levels of cooperation can free up cognitive resources for performing processing tasks well. Either way, the cooperation and lack of aggression facets of agreeableness showed some positive correlations with processing speed abilities. Specifically, perceptual speed correlated .10 with lack of aggression (N = 2,305, K = 15), and number facility correlated .20 with cooperation (N = 21,025, K = 8). However, the negligible correlation between perceptual speed and cooperation (p̂ = -.03, N = 4,304, K = 12) called into question the consistency of relations across specific processing speed abilities. In addition, relations with most other agreeableness aspects and facets were tenuous. Further research should examine the links between processing speed abilities and the promising agreeableness facets pointed to by the meta-analyses and conceptual reasoning presented here.

Processing speed abilities are related to the factor alpha meta-trait and stress tolerance compound trait. Given the meta-analytic evidence for the positive relations with conscientiousness and agreeableness alongside negative relations with neuroticism, it was expected that processing abilities would relate positively to the factor alpha meta-trait, which represents shared variance among these three traits. Factor alpha is a higher order trait, referred to as stability by some researchers (DeYoung, 2006) and interpreted as socialization by others (Davies et al., 2015; Digman, 1997). It is a prime component of homeostasis and helps maintain and preserve the individual. We expected processing abilities to correlate sizably with factor alpha. This expectation was borne out for two of the three processing speed abilities for which there were sufficient data to estimate relations with factor alpha. Number facility and perceptual speed were both positively and generalizably related to factor alpha (p̂ = .17 and .08, N = 32,591 and 15,333, K = 14 and 20, respectively). Similarly, the compound trait of stress tolerance captures variance from the same Big Five factors as factor alpha, with a higher proportion from (low) neuroticism. Stress tolerance correlated .16 and .20 with scanning and number facility, respectively (N = 74,168 and 21,321, K = 5 and 8, respectively). Oddly, perceptual speed appeared to be unrelated to stress tolerance, but this was based on a smaller number of independent effect sizes, and therefore could be due to second-order sampling error (p̂ = .04, N = 2,156, K = 3). Taken together, these findings indicate that individuals who perform well on processing speed tests appear to be well-adjusted and socialized individuals. In general, processing abilities are the strongest positive correlates of the personality domain’s meta-trait factor alpha (stability/socialization), which is also in line with their positive relations with conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability—reflecting a complex of traits and abilities that confers stability to individuals, especially when conditions are difficult and/or the environment is unsupportive.

Processing speed abilities are positively related to extraversion facets sociability and activity. This constellation of associated traits and abilities indicates adaptation to the environment. The activity facet of extraversion was consistently, homogenously, and positively related to processing speed abilities. The three processing abilities for which data were available yielded similar correlations: .15 for perceptual speed (N = 372,882, K = 27), .13 for scanning (N = 370,501, K = 6), and .16 for number facility (N = 359,806, K = 3). The sociability facet of extraversion related positively and more substantially to perceptual speed, scanning, and number facility (p̂ = .18, .14, and .17, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 36–40 in Appendix G). Overall, it appears that individuals who score high on processing speed are also more active and sociable. These results suggest that adapting to social environments relies on personality facets of sociability and activity from the extraversion domain but also on processing speed abilities, the latter perhaps instrumental in perceiving details pertaining to social situations.

Specific processing speed abilities are consistently, homogenously, and positively related to self esteem. Recall from earlier sections that self esteem is a compound personality construct that captures variance from three Big Five factors (i.e., low neuroticism, high extraversion, and high conscientiousness), which were all correlated with processing speed. As expected, self esteem correlated positively with perceptual speed (p̂ = .15, N = 377,279, K = 36), scanning (p̂ = .14, N = 388,494, K = 13), and number facility (p̂ = .16, N = 359,882, K = 5). Individuals who are self-confident and self-assured tended to score higher on processing speed abilities. Such a trait and ability pairing may confer general fitness—that is, successfully using both self-preservation and self-evolution to adapt to the environment as conditions demand. Self esteem contributes to psychological resilience to accomplish goals, and processing speed facilitates recognition of the need to adapt.

Specific processing speed abilities positively relate to ambition. This constellation of traits corresponds to behavioral activation, especially for initiating adaptation. Ambition is a compound of extraversion and conscientiousness traits. Similar to the industriousness aspect of conscientiousness and the enthusiasm aspect of extraversion, ambition showed positive relations with scanning and number facility (p̂ = .66 and .25, N = 8,779 and 8,880, K = 3 and 5, respectively). Fewer data points were available for the relation with perceptual speed, but the estimated relation was .15, which was also similar to industriousness at .17 (N = 899 and 367,829, K = 5 and 34, respectively).

Processing speed abilities may correlate positively with openness’ experiencing aspect at a similar or stronger magnitude than its intellect aspect. This constellation of associated traits and abilities reflects activation for adapting to the environment. Openness constructs, especially its intellect aspect and related facets, typically constitute the strongest positive personality correlates of cognitive ability constructs. However, this may not be the case for processing abilities. Perceptual speed had a mean meta-analytic correlation of .10 across the openness factor, aspects, and facets (excluding openness compounds), and correlated .10 with the general openness factor. The correlations with openness’ intellect aspect and the aligned facet need for cognition were .13 (N = 947 and 3,342, K = 6 and 8, respectively). Its relation with the ideas facet was somewhat stronger, at .19 (N = 2,308, K = 18). The experiencing aspect also correlated .19 with perceptual speed (N = 366,026, K = 24). However, relations with experiencing-aligned facets fantasy and aesthetics were weak and non-generalizable (p̂ = .01 and .06, N = 1,909 and 1,916, K = 19 and 19, CV = -.08 to .11 and -.04 to .16, respectively). There were positive and generalizable relations with openness’ experiencing aspect and scanning as well as number facility (p̂ = .15 and .17, N = 362,578 and 363,819, K = 11 and 9, CV = .15 to .15 and .14 to .20, respectively).

Reaction & Decision Speed Abilities

Reaction and decision speed refers to the speed and accuracy of a decision/behavior after perceiving and/or judging a stimulus. Sub-dimensions include simple reaction time, choice reaction time, semantic processing speed, mental comparison speed, and inspection time.

Figure 9 summarizes results for reaction and decision speed abilities. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 41–48 (see Appendix G).

Our database was relatively sparse for reaction and decision speed. However, small, negative relations with both aspects of neuroticism (mean p̂ = -.12 for withdrawal and -.12 for volatility regardless of N or K) as well as negligible relations with agreeableness- and conscientiousness-related traits (excluding compounds) were observed (mean across all meta-analytic estimates were p̂ = .01 and -.03, respectively regardless of N or K). The enthusiasm aspect of extraversion displayed positive relations with simple reaction time (p̂ = .21, N = 329, K = 4), choice decision time (p̂ = .15, N = 5,187, K = 5), and choice movement time (p̂ = .16, N = 5,187, K = 5), which was very similar to the pattern observed for the compound trait of optimism.37 Most other traits did not have enough data to draw robust conclusions, but the current results suggest that openness may be less related to reaction and decision speed abilities than other major cognitive abilities.

Invested Abilities: Acquired Knowledge

Acquired knowledge encompasses a large set of invested abilities that can be grouped into three clusters that appear to have distinct nomological networks with personality constructs: quantitative abilities, verbal abilities, and domain specific abilities. These clusters are all concerned with the acquisition, recollection, and utilization of knowledge. Dimensions of knowledge in the quantitative domain showed differential relations with personality traits compared with dimensions of knowledge in the verbal domain. Key findings for each cluster are highlighted below.

Acquired Knowledge: Quantitative Ability

Quantitative ability describes abilities invested in the mathematical area. These abilities are distinct from quantitative reasoning ability and number facility. Quantitative reasoning ability is a fluid ability that involves using induction or deduction in reasoning with quantitative concepts. Number facility is a perceptual ability that involves speeded performance of basic arithmetic operations. In contrast, acquired quantitative ability is a knowledge-based (i.e., invested) ability focused on information about mathematics, including symbols and operations. Quantitative ability has two major components: mathematics knowledge and mathematics achievement. Mathematics knowledge is the declarative and procedural knowledge of mathematics (e.g., knowing how to compute the volume of a sphere). Mathematics achievement is typically indicated by performance on standardized mathematics achievement tests (e.g., tests used in educational settings to assess invested ability to solve quantitative problems using mathematical knowledge).

Figure 10 summarizes results for quantitative ability constructs. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 50–52 (see Appendix G).

Figure 10. Invested abilities correlate with personality traits.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂) are only reported in black type when 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.

Quantitative abilities appear to have negative associations with all Big Five personality constructs, except openness. Available data for specific quantitative abilities revealed robust, negative relations with neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion.

Broad quantitative ability displayed negative relations with global neuroticism, its anxiety and uneven tempered facets, as well as test anxiety (p̂ = -.18, -.28, -.27, and -.20, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 50–52 in Appendix G). It also had a slight, negative relation with extraversion (p̂ = -.09, N = 4,875, K = 12), indicating that introverted individuals score slightly higher on quantitative ability.

Stronger relations were found for mathematics knowledge, which related negatively to global agreeableness (p̂ = -.15), conscientiousness (p̂ = -.17), and extraversion (p̂ = -.17; see Supplementary Tables 50–52 in Appendix G). It is worth noting that the dominance facet of extraversion had a positive relation with mathematics knowledge, though it was weaker (p̂ = .11, N = 444,593, K = 6). These results generally indicate that individuals who have invested abilities in the mathematics knowledge domain appear to be lower in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion. As stipulated by the investment theory of intelligence (Cattell, 1987), quantitative abilities are developed over time, and therefore these personality traits may play a role in creating the quantitative tilt in individuals’ cognitive ability profiles. An alternative explanation based on our Cybernetic Trait Complexes Theory (see Chapter 6) may be that the preceding personality traits, which are mostly associated with maintenance of homeostasis, are starved for psychological energy at the expense of energy-intensive pursuits like the acquisition of quantitative abilities.

Lastly, we note that openness correlated positively but more weakly with quantitative ability and mathematics knowledge than other domains of cognitive abilities (e.g., .11 with quantitative ability and .09 with mathematics knowledge; see Supplementary Tables 50–52 in Appendix G).

Mathematics achievement correlates negligibly with the Big Five personality factors at the global level, though it correlates positively with proactive tendencies (e.g., self esteem, internal locus of control, and ambition). Very few studies were found that reported relations between mathematics achievement and personality. Each meta-analysis with mathematics achievement was based on fewer than 10 effect sizes. Second-order sampling error notwithstanding, the global Big Five personality traits were negligibly related to mathematics achievement. More sizable relations were found for some specific traits, which appear to be masked at the global Big Five level. Five compound personality traits were correlated substantially and positively with mathematics achievement: self esteem,38 internal locus of control,39 and achievement via independence40 (p̂ = .23, .46, and .41, respectively; Supplementary Tables 50–52 in Appendix G) as well as ambition41 (p̂ = .19) and rugged individualism42 (p̂ = .26). What these traits have in common is that they bring together variance from low neuroticism, high extraversion, and high conscientiousness (for self esteem, locus of control, and achievement via independence) and high extraversion and conscientiousness (for ambition and rugged individualism). Therefore, the proactive behavioral tendencies (i.e., behavioral activation tendencies) associated with the joint effects of extraversion and conscientiousness might play a role in mathematics achievement.

Acquired Knowledge: Verbal Ability

Verbal ability describes abilities invested in language acquisition, development, and utilization, encompassing reading and writing abilities as well as comprehension knowledge abilities. Reading and writing abilities are defined as, “knowledge and skills related to written language” (McGrew et al., 2014). More specific sub-abilities include reading comprehension, reading decoding, reading speed, native language usage, writing ability, and spelling ability. Comprehension knowledge abilities are described as verbal “knowledge and skills that are valued by one’s culture” (McGrew et al., 2014). They include specific abilities such as general verbal information, language development, lexical knowledge, communication ability, and listening ability. Of the 545 verbal ability-personality relations examined, most verbal abilities related similarly to personality constructs. Differential relations for specific verbal abilities were exceedingly rare.

Figure 10 summarizes results for verbal ability constructs. Complete, detailed results of results are presented in Supplementary Tables 53–65 (see Appendix G).

Verbal abilities are negatively and quite substantially related to the uneven tempered and suspiciousness facets of neuroticism. Similar to other abilities, verbal abilities had negative relations with neuroticism traits. Depression and anxiety facets displayed relations generally in the -.11 to -.23 range. Stronger relations were found for some verbal ability and neuroticism construct pairs (e.g., native language usage ability correlated -.31 with neuroticism’s test anxiety facet, N = 1,381, K = 6). Relations for uneven tempered and suspiciousness were as large, if not larger, than those for other abilities. Uneven tempered correlated -.33 with general verbal information, -.30 with verbal ability broadly defined, -.30 with reading comprehension, -.28 with native language usage, -.26 with lexical knowledge, -.26 with language development, -.26 with comprehension knowledge, and -.25 with spelling ability (see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G). While data were sparser for the suspiciousness facet of neuroticism, similar, albeit somewhat weaker, relations were apparent. Correlations were -.28 with comprehension knowledge, -.23 with lexical knowledge, -.22 with general verbal information, -.21 with reading comprehension, and -.15 with verbal ability broadly defined (see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G). These sizable, negative relations indicate that individuals who have uneven tempers or are suspicious do not tend to invest their abilities in the verbal domain, or that individuals who score higher on verbal abilities are better able to manage their neurotic tendencies, especially when it comes to displaying uneven temper or suspiciousness. In either case, higher verbal abilities, even temper, and lower levels of suspiciousness form a trait constellation that may support the psychological and social stability of individuals (e.g., by allowing them to verbally process through events with a positive mindset).

Verbal abilities generally relate positively and substantially to conscientiousness’ industriousness aspect and order facet. Verbal abilities correlated positively with many conscientiousness traits. Focusing on relations where robust conclusions could be drawn based on sample size and number of contributing effect sizes, the industriousness aspect and order facet stood out. Industriousness relations were .34 with general verbal information, .33 with verbal ability broadly defined, .31 with native language usage, .31 with reading comprehension, .31 with spelling ability, .29 with language development, .27 with comprehension knowledge, and .26 with lexical knowledge (see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G). These findings are in line with verbal abilities’ positive relations with the achievement facet of conscientiousness (e.g., broad verbal ability p̂ = .12 [N = 2,467, K = 18] and reading comprehension p̂ = .20 [N = 1,174, K = 5], though achievement’s relations with comprehension knowledge abilities were negligible). In addition, compound trait ambition, which incorporates variance from conscientiousness but also extraversion, appeared to be positively related to some verbal abilities (p̂ = .13 for broad verbal ability, .30 for reading and writing, and .14 for lexical knowledge; N = 4,506, 2,703, and 7,057, K = 18, 2, and 18, respectively), though these relations may not all be generalizable (CV = -.08 to .35, .26 to .34, and -.03 to .32, respectively). Achievement via independence is another compound trait that incorporates variance from high conscientiousness (especially industriousness) as well as extraversion, openness, and low neuroticism. It correlated .42 (N = 2,884, K = 12) with broad verbal abilities and .38 (N = 5,238, K = 11) with lexical knowledge. Other compound personality traits that have variance from conscientiousness, but also include variance from extraversion and low neuroticism, correlated positively with verbal abilities as well (i.e., self esteem,43 locus of control,44 and rugged individualism45). These relations were as large as .45 (e.g., for internal locus of control and reading comprehension) but as small as .02 (e.g., for rugged individualism and language development).

Second, conscientiousness’ order facet displayed positive, sizable relations with verbal abilities. Relations were .25 with verbal ability broadly defined, .21 with reading comprehension, .25 with comprehension knowledge, .20 with general verbal information, .30 with spelling ability, .26 with native language usage, .25 with language development, and .19 with lexical knowledge (see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G). The orderliness aspect of conscientiousness, which includes organization, scheduling, and perfectionistic strivings above and beyond the concepts of neatness and non-messiness encapsulated in the order facet, had unremarkable relations with verbal abilities. There are two potential explanations for this finding. First, it may be that the spatial and conceptual aspects of being organized are positively related to verbal abilities, whereas the temporal aspects of organization are not. This explanation is consistent with findings from other relations observed between verbal ability and conscientiousness-related traits discussed below. Second, outliers may have clouded the relations between orderliness and verbal abilities (see Supplementary Tables 150–162 in Appendix H as well as the “Impact of extremely large studies” section in Chapter 9).

Finally, the conscientiousness-related compound personality trait of routine seeking46 appears to be negatively related to some verbal abilities. Relations were -.21 with broad verbal ability and -.23 with lexical knowledge (N = 2,751 and 5,634, K = 8 and 9, respectively). Similarly, the cautiousness facet of conscientiousness correlated negatively with verbal abilities, though relations were modest (e.g., -.14 with general verbal information, -.13 with language development, -.12 with lexical knowledge, -.10 with reading comprehension, and -.08 with broad verbal ability) (see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G).

At face value, this pattern of positive, null, and negative results highlights the complex role that conscientiousness-related traits may have in the development of verbal abilities and acquisition of verbal knowledge; conceptual and spatial order as well as industriousness may be helpful, whereas cautiousness and routine seeking may detract. Future studies are needed to further delineate these relations.

Verbal abilities are positively related to the activity and sociability facets of extraversion. Although global extraversion was not consistently related to verbal abilities, meta-analytic results supported verbal abilities’ positive relations with several extraversion traits. Chief among them was the activity facet. Relations with verbal abilities were in the .20s (p̂ = .28 with general verbal information, .24 with lexical knowledge, .23 with reading comprehension, .22 with broad verbal ability, .20 with native language usage, .19 with comprehension knowledge, and .18 with spelling ability; see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G). Relations with sociability and dominance were still positive but weaker. Relations with sociability were in the .14 to .22 range, except for lexical knowledge (p̂ = .08). Relations with dominance were weaker, in the .09 to .14 range, except for comprehension knowledge and lexical knowledge (p̂ = .07 and .08, respectively). Dominance thus showed modest but consistently positive relations with verbal abilities. For the remaining extraversion aspects and facets, either there were limited data (e.g., for positive emotionality) or relations across verbal abilities were not consistent (e.g., for sensation seeking). In summary, extraversion facets’ positive relations with verbal abilities varied in strength. The strongest relations were for verbal abilities with the activity facet of extraversion, which was also a substantial correlate of quantitative abilities and domain specific knowledge (mean p̂ = .20 and .21, respectively).

Comprehension knowledge verbal abilities correlate more strongly with facets of openness aligned with the intellect aspect than with facets aligned with the experiencing aspect. This constellation of individual differences is associated with initiating adaptation to the environment. Relations were typically in the .24 to .30 range. Comprehension knowledge correlated .36 with the ideas facet, whereas relations were .14 with fantasy, .15 with aesthetics, .24 with non traditional, and .28 with experiencing (see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G). Lexical knowledge is an excellent marker for comprehension knowledge. It correlated .40 with the ideas facet, .25 with the curiosity facet, and .24 with the need for cognition facet of openness (see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G). A relation of .10 with the intellect aspect was an exception to these sizable correlations (N = 9,211, K = 16).

In contrast, lexical knowledge’s relations with facets linked to the experiencing aspect were variable and generally weaker (variety seeking p̂ = .04, aesthetics p̂ = .07, fantasy p̂ = 11, introspection p̂ = .13, non traditional p̂ = .25; see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G). Surprisingly, lexical knowledge correlated .25 with the experiencing aspect of openness. A similar pattern was evident for other comprehension knowledge abilities such as general verbal information where relations with the more intellectual need for cognition and ideas facets were .26 and .38, respectively (N = 619 and 2,375, K = 5 and 11, respectively). In contrast, relations with more experiencing-related introspection, fantasy, aesthetics, and non traditional were .09, -.01, .11, and .13, respectively (see Supplementary Tables 53–65 in Appendix G).

Acquired Knowledge: Domain Specific Knowledge

Domain specific knowledge describes abilities invested in specific knowledge areas such as foreign language proficiency, arts and humanities, behavioral content knowledge, business knowledge, occupation-related knowledge, realistic knowledge (e.g., knowledge of machinery), general science knowledge, life sciences knowledge, mechanical knowledge, natural sciences knowledge, physical sciences knowledge, and social studies knowledge. Our investigations of domain specific knowledge areas were tied to the availability of data, rather than a systematic representation of all possible specific knowledge domains. We note that domain specific knowledge can range from quite broad (e.g., natural sciences knowledge) to extremely specific (e.g., knowledge of oak trees). Here we highlight findings for a few general domains where sufficiently large samples supported robust conclusions.

Figure 10 summarizes results for domain specific knowledge constructs. Complete, detailed results are presented in Supplementary Tables 66–80 in Appendix G.

Domain specific knowledge is positively related to openness, but magnitudes of relations are inconsistent. Openness correlated .38 with behavioral and psychological knowledge, .24 with general science knowledge (though its experiencing aspect correlated -.10), .21 with social studies knowledge (.17 with experiencing aspect), and .06 with physical sciences knowledge (see Supplementary Tables 66–80 in Appendix G). These results may suggest that knowledge domains that are closer to quantitative abilities or that require quantitative knowledge for their acquisition covary less with openness and may covary negatively with openness’ experiencing aspect. In contrast, knowledge domains that are more closely aligned with the use of verbal abilities in their acquisition (e.g., behavioral knowledge) may positively covary with openness, including its experiencing aspect.

Domain specific knowledge has negligible to weak associations with global neuroticism. Analyses revealed particularly weak relations between domain specific knowledge and neuroticism as well as most of its facets. These generally weak relations contrast with neuroticism’s closer association with verbal knowledge. Only three neuroticism-specific traits had relations greater than .10 in magnitude: neuroticism (with foreign language proficiency, mechanical knowledge, and physical sciences knowledge), test anxiety (with mechanical knowledge and social studies knowledge), and uneven tempered (with domain specific knowledge, arts and humanities, business knowledge, realistic knowledge, life sciences knowledge, mechanical knowledge, physical sciences knowledge, and social studies knowledge) (p̂ = -.12, -.13, -.13, -.15, -.31, -.31, -.32, -.31, -.19, -.29, -.18, -.16, and -.26, respectively; see Supplementary Tables 66–80 in Appendix G). The generally weak relations indicate that most neuroticism-related traits may have little impact on the acquisition of domain specific knowledge or that knowledge acquisition in a domain may even be driven by external structures (e.g., job training) that leverage neuroticism-related traits (e.g., sensitivity to punishment) to fuel learning.

While relations with conscientiousness- and extraversion-related traits appeared to differ by specific knowledge domain, the current numbers of effect sizes do not conclusively indicate whether these differences are genuine or due to second-order sampling error. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that knowledge in verbally oriented domains tended to have relations with personality similar to verbal abilities, and knowledge in STEM domains tended to have similar personality correlates to quantitative abilities.

General Mental Ability

General fitness represents individuals’ agility in effectively moving between a focus on surviving and a focus on thriving as the environment demands or affords. General mental ability indexes the shared variance amongst cognitive ability constructs; and represents the broad capacity to reason, plan, problem-solve, learn, comprehend, and think abstractly. General mental ability is the cognitive capability to perceive, organize, retain, understand, and utilize information for cybernetic effectiveness (DeYoung & Krueger, 2018). It is the central fitness-conferring ability, and is associated with both self-evolution and growth as well as self-maintenance and stability. Multiple sets of results highlight trait constellations that incorporate this role of general mental ability.

General mental ability is most closely and generalizably associated with openness and compound personality traits that involve a combination of emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness. Results for general mental ability, depicted in Figure 11 and presented in Supplementary Table 3 in Appendix G, highlight the trait complexes in which general mental ability is involved and that support self-evolution and growth as well as general fitness.

Figure 11. General mental ability and compound abilities correlate with personality traits.

Note. “cd.” denotes compound traits. Meta-analytic correlations (i.e., p̂) are only reported in black type when 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.

Consistent with the past literature on general mental ability-openness relations (von Stumm & Ackerman, 2013), openness constructs, especially the intellect aspect and associated facets need for cognition, ideas, and curiosity, correlated in the .17 to .40 range with general mental ability.

Ideas was the openness facet that correlated most strongly with general mental ability (p̂ = .40, N = 27,990, K = 83). Global openness correlated .26 (N = 280,446, K = 368), and all these relations were generalizable (i.e., the lower credibility values were positive). Compound personality attributes that included openness constructs also tended to be positively and just as strongly related to general mental ability (e.g., creative personality;47 p̂ = .25, N = 16,860, K = 16, independent of conventions and others;48 p̂ = .13, N = 15,450, K = 21).

The more noteworthy findings for general mental ability, however, were relations with compound personality attributes defined by high levels of extraversion, high levels of conscientiousness (especially its industriousness aspect), and low levels of neuroticism. These associated traits and abilities function together as a fitness complex, balancing both homeostasis and change to determine what individuals direct their energy toward, in what amount/with what intensity, and for how long. The personality constructs in this complex include self esteem49 and internal locus of control,50 which were substantially correlated with general mental ability, .25 and .23, respectively (N = 434,320 and 56,951, K = 127 and 55).

Components of these compound personality scales were also correlated with general mental ability (e.g., extraversion facet activity p̂ = .23 [N = 381,809, K = 65], conscientiousness aspect industriousness p̂ = .32 [N = 383,960, K = 89], and neuroticism facets depression and uneven tempered, p̂ = -.18 and -.29 [N = 21,439 and 396,668, K = 49 and 100, respectively]). The same three personality constructs are also represented in interpersonal sensitivity51 and achievement via independence,52 which were themselves remarkably correlated with general mental ability, p̂ = .20 and .37, respectively (N = 9,855 and 14,096, K = 21 and 44). However, openness is also a core element of these two compound traits. Individuals who achieve most in unstructured situations, are sensitive to the emotions of others, and are generally more open-minded tend to be more intelligent. The generalizability of these relations, as well as the pervasiveness of personality traits involving extraversion, conscientiousness (especially industriousness), and emotional stability among general mental ability correlates, indicates a tilt toward behavioral activation/proactivity as an important part of general mental ability’s function in general fitness.

Behavioral activation represents pursuit of goals, reward sensitivity, and feelings of positive emotions as one approaches or attains a reward (Carver & White, 1994). Put differently, individuals who are high on general mental ability appear to have a greater tendency toward proactivity. General mental ability and these personality traits likely co-influence each other. For example, those who are smart might achieve more, which might in turn boost their self esteem. Additionally, the relations may reflect the effects of third variables (e.g., supportive environments may foster both higher ability and higher self esteem). The broader results indicate that general mental ability, self esteem, and the general factor of personality may be hallmarks of general cybernetic effectiveness (i.e., general fitness). Ultimately, these appear to be key characteristics for effectively surviving and thriving.

General mental ability is lower among individuals who are depressed, anxious, uneven tempered, or suspicious. Relations with multiple neuroticism facets, not just test anxiety, were negative, generalizable, and relatively homogenous. This complex of associated traits and abilities reflects a lowered ability to deal with complexity that corresponds with a heightened vigilance to and avoidance of threats, implying a high sensitivity to peril that corresponds with instability and decreased ability to sift signal from noise, which leads to greater uncertainty about the (ostensibly short) future. Conversely, higher general mental ability paired with higher emotional stability/lower neuroticism highlights a complex that is functional for the maintenance of self.

In terms of specific traits, general mental ability correlated -.18 with depression, -.17 with suspiciousness, and -.29 with uneven tempered (see Supplementary Table 3 in Appendix G). Although the relation with negative affect was also of similar magnitude and negative (p̂ = -.16, N = 6,453, K = 18), that relation was not generalizable (CV between .02 and -.35). Finally, although test anxiety correlated p̂ = -.20 with general mental ability, it was also the most variable (SDp̂ = .22, N = 9,293, K = 42), indicating heterogeneity across true effect sizes.

General mental ability correlates negatively and non-negligibly with agreeableness facet modesty. General mental ability appears to be somewhat lower among individuals who are humble and deferent in interactions with others. The correlation with modesty was -.13 for (N = 18,561, K = 21). One potential interpretation is that modesty may be a compensatory social strategy for individuals with low general mental ability, facilitating maintenance of self in social environments, though the effects are weak.

Distillation of Intelligence’s Relations with Personality

In this chapter, we detailed meta-analytic evidence highlighting notable relations between many cognitive abilities and personality constructs. These relations are not limited to openness-related traits.

Several cognitive abilities were found to be correlated with Big Five factors, facets, and compound personality constructs associated with behavioral activation and proactivity (i.e., those bringing together personality trait variance from emotional stability, extraversion, industriousness aspect of conscientiousness, and intellect aspect of openness). Associated abilities include induction and quantitative reasoning, short term memory abilities, specific mathematics achievement abilities, and, more modestly, visual processing abilities. Relations between retrieval fluency abilities and self esteem53 as well as visual processing and rugged individualism54 may also be linked to this trait complex.

In addition, most cognitive abilities correlated substantially and positively with openness traits. However, there was a striking difference in how some, but not all, cognitive abilities related more with the intellect aspect than the experiencing aspect. Fluid abilities and visual processing abilities showed notable, positive relations with openness, especially its intellect aspect, facets most related to intellect (i.e., need for cognition, ideas, and curiosity), and compound personality traits involving intellect. Comprehension knowledge verbal abilities also correlated more strongly with openness facets aligned to the intellect aspect compared to those aligned with the experiencing aspect. In contrast, processing abilities correlated positively with openness’ experiencing aspect at a similar or stronger magnitude than its intellect aspect. Similarly, retrieval fluency abilities had relatively uniform, positive correlations with openness, as well as its aspects and facets. Differential relations with intellect- and experiencing-related traits may shed light on distinctive functional and developmental processes that bring about such differentiations.

Although most cognitive abilities were negatively correlated with neuroticism, particularly its depression-related facets, these negative relations were especially notable for induction and quantitative reasoning, short term memory abilities, retrieval fluency abilities, and processing speed abilities. Both processing abilities and verbal abilities were also negatively linked with the uneven tempered and suspiciousness facets of neuroticism. In contrast, visual processing abilities were less related to neuroticism and its aspects and facets than other major abilities.

Several cognitive abilities displayed differential relations with conscientiousness traits. Processing speed abilities related positively and similarly to both industriousness and orderliness aspects of conscientiousness. Likewise, verbal abilities related positively and substantially to conscientiousness’ industriousness aspect and order facet. Fluid abilities, however, negatively related to the orderliness aspect of conscientiousness. Several retrieval fluency abilities had negative, albeit weak, associations with conscientiousness’ cautiousness facet.

Cognitive abilities’ relations with extraversion and agreeableness traits appeared to be sporadic and localized to specific abilities. Fluid abilities showed consistent, small, positive relations with agreeableness and extraversion traits. Retrieval fluency abilities were positively related to global extraversion as well as to its aspects and dominance facet. Both processing speed and verbal abilities were positively related to extraversion facets sociability and activity. General sequential reasoning related positively to the non manipulative facet of agreeableness. Visualization had a mild, negative correlation with the modesty facet of agreeableness. Finally, processing speed abilities correlated positively with the agreeableness facets cooperation and lack of aggression.

Results for general mental ability confirmed its close association with openness traits but also with behavioral activation and proactivity traits. Its relations with neuroticism traits revealed sizable, negative relations with depression, anxiety, uneven tempered, and suspicious. Unexpectedly, it related negatively and non-negligibly with agreeableness’ modesty facet.

The findings from the present meta-analyses reflect a rich network of relations between cognitive abilities and personality traits. We implore cognitive ability researchers to consider the potential impacts of personality co-variation on their research. Developmental, functional, and consequential explanations that focus solely on cognitive abilities cannot offer complete accounts without considering associated personality traits.

References

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

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319.

Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. Elsevier.

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

DeYoung, C. G., & Krueger, R. F. (2018). A cybernetic theory of psychopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 29(3), 117–138.

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

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.

Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2013). Spatial ability: A neglected talent in educational and occupational settings. Roeper Review, 35(4), 219–230.

Kostal, J. W. (2019). Human cognitive abilities: The structure and predictive power of group factors. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(2), 61–66.

McGrew, K. S., LaForte, E. M., & Schrank, F. A. (2014). Woodcock Johnson IV Technical Manual. Riverside.

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

Reilly, D., & Neumann, D. L. (2013). Gender-role differences in spatial ability: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 68(9–10), 521–535.

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

Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2018). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 76–163). Guilford Press.

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.

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