Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
148x Filetype PDF File size 0.27 MB Source: www.bib.irb.hr
Accelerating the world's research.
Relationship between Cattell’s 16PF
and fluid and crystallized intelligence
Nermin Djapo
Personality and Individual Differences
Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu
Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles
Related papers Download a PDF Pack of the best related papers
A possible model for understanding the personality-intelligence interface
Adrian Furnham
Personality and intelligence: Gender, the Big Five, selfestimated and psychometric intelligence
Adrian Furnham
Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence?
Adrian Furnham
Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 63–67
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Relationship between Cattell’s 16PF and fluid and crystallized intelligence
⇑
Nermin Djapo , Jadranka Kolenovic-Djapo, Ratko Djokic, Indira Fako
Department of Psychology, Philosophical Faculty, University of Sarajevo, Franje Rackog 1, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
article info abstract
Article history: Theaimofthestudywastoexploretherelationshipbetweenthefiveglobalfactorsand16dimensionsof
Received 3 December 2010 Cattell’s personality model and fluid and crystallized intelligence. A total of 105 third graders (45.7%
Received in revised form 3 March 2011 males) of three high schools participated in the research. Fluid intelligence was measured by Raven’s
Accepted 9 March 2011 Advanced Progressive Matrices and crystallized intelligence was measured by the Mill Hill Vocabulary
Available online 3 April 2011 Scale. Personality traits were measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Anxiety is cor-
related neither with fluid nor with crystallized intelligence. Extraversion and Self-Control are negatively
Keywords: correlated with fluid intelligence whereas Tough-Mindedness is positively correlated with it. Indepen-
16PF dence is positively correlated with crystallized intelligence and Tough-Mindedness is negatively corre-
Fluid intelligence
Crystallized intelligence lated with it. Regression analysis reveals that all broad personality factors, except anxiety, are
significant predictors of fluid intelligence. When combined together, these factors account for 25% of
the variance of fluid intelligence scores. The regression model with crystallized intelligence as a criterion
variable is not statistically significant. The study results are consistent with the Chamorro-Premuzic and
Furnham’s (2005) two-level conceptual framework. Although using a different taxonomy of personality,
the results are in accordance with the model’s presuppositions.
2011Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Fluid intelligence refers to the processing of information and the
ability to reason with the aim to understand relationships and ab-
In the 1990s, interest in research on the relationship between stract propositions (Stankov, 2000), whereas crystallized intelli-
intelligence and personality was revived, especially after more de- gence refers to the acquisition, storing, organisation and
tailed analyses of the correlation as interpreted by Saklofske and conceptualisation of pieces of information (Chamorro-Premuzic &
Zeidner (1995) and Sternberg and Ruzgis (1994), Ackerman and Furnham,2005).Inthefieldofpersonalitypsychology,theBig-Five
Heggestad’s meta-analysis of the interconnectedness of personal- personality framework dominates the trait approach to personal-
ity constructs and intelligence (1997) and particularly after leading ity. According to the Big Five model, personality traits can be
authors in individual differences psychology reached a consensus organised within five broad and basic dimensions: Extraversion,
in regards to the organisation of intellectual abilities and Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Open-
personality structures. Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004), ness to Experience. These fundamental dimensions are personality
Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2005) proposed a framework dispositions that allow us to understand the consistency of an indi-
for interpreting the relationship between intelligence and person- vidual’s thinking, feeling and behavior, relatively independent of
the situation, context and time (
ality traits. Their two-level conceptual framework is based on the Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
Big-Five personality model and concepts of fluid and crystallized 2005).
intelligence. This study is aimed at testing the basic assumptions In studies of the relationship between intelligence and person-
of the Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham conceptual framework ality traits the most frequent results are low to moderate coeffi-
with Cattell’s model of 16 personality factors as a foundation for cients of correlation between intelligence and the Big Five
the operationalisation of personality traits. dimensions. The correlation between Openness to Experience and
The majority of theoreticians believe that intelligence is hierar- intelligence is moderate and positive (Ackerman & Heggestad,
chically organised with a general factor on top which can account 1997; Austin et al., 2002; Chamorro-Premuzic, Moutafi, and
for the individual differences in the subordinated factors (Carroll Furnham, 2005). Furthermore, studies point to a low and negative
). One of the most influential theories of correlationbetweenConscientiousnessandintelligence(Ackerman
1993; Gustafsson, 1988
intelligence is Cattell’s theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. & Heggestad, 1997; Austin et al., 2002; Moutafi, Furnham, &
Crump, 2003) whereas the correlation between Neuroticism and
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +387 33253125. intelligence is usually negative (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997;
E-mail address: nermin.djapo@ff.unsa.ba (N. Djapo). Austin et al., 2002). The results of research on the correlation
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.014
64 N. Djapo et al./Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 63–67
between Extraversion and intelligence are inconsistent; in some interesting to evaluate certain premises of the two-level model
studies the authors report a positive correlation (e.g. Ackerman & using Cattell’s model of 16 personality factors. Based on the two-
Heggestad,1997),whileotherresearchersreportazerocorrelation level conceptual framework (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
(e.g. Austin et al., 2002), and even a negative correlation (Austin 2005), and in consideration of the fluid and crystallized intelli-
et al., 2002). Of the Big Five personality traits, Agreeableness is gencefunctions,itcouldbeassumedthatAnxietyandExtraversion
the least correlated with intelligence. Ackerman and Heggestad should be in negative correlation with the results on the fluid and
(1997)determinedpositive,lowandstatisticallyinsignificantcoef- crystallized intelligence tests. In consideration of the fact that fluid
ficients of correlation between Agreeableness and intelligence. intelligence refers to the processing of information and ability to
However, a meta-analytical study by Austin et al. (2002) found reason and that it is linked with the capacity and efficacy of work-
low, negative, statistically significant correlations. ing memory, solving fluid memory test tasks requires greater cog-
Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004), Chamorro-Premuzic nitive endeavor than solving crystallized intelligence test tasks.
and Furnham (2005) proposed a two-level conceptual framework Thus, we expect a greater negative correlation between Anxiety
for understanding the results found in investigations of the rela- and fluid intelligence than between Anxiety and crystallized intel-
tionship between the five broad personality traits and fluid and ligence. Since fluid intelligence tests are not time constrained, and
crystallized intelligence. The first level of the model refers to the thusmoresuitedtointroverts,weexpectanegativecorrelationbe-
ability as test performance output (measured directly) and to the tween Extraversion and fluid intelligence. Furthermore, Self-Con-
effects of Neuroticism and Extraversion on the results of intelli- trol should be in negative correlation with the fluid intelligence
gencetesting.Thenegativeeffects(anxiety,worry,tension,depres- test scores, whereas Independence will be in positive correlation
sion, anger) interfere with the cognitive processes needed for an with the crystallized intelligence test scores. Self-Control is con-
efficient solution of a problem (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, ceptually similar to the dimension of Conscientiousness, whereas
2005). On the other hand, the correlation between Extraversion Independence is similar to the dimension of Openness in the Big
and intelligence depends on the nature of the intelligence test Five model. We can predict Tough-Mindedness to be in positive
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). Extraverted persons were correlation with the fluid intelligence test results. This general fac-
more successful in time-limited tests, while the introverts were tor Cattell named ‘‘Corteria’’, which is shortened from ‘‘cortical
more successful in those tasks that were not time-limited and alertness’’ and described those individuals who achieve high re-
needed introspection. Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) explained such sults in this factor as alert and prone to dealing with problems in
a correlation between Extraversion and intelligence by a theory of a cognitive manner (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970).
arousal. According to this theory introverts have a lower reactive
inhibition due to which they display a tendency to avoid arousal
stimuli, unlike extraverts who show a tendency towards the arou- 2. Method
sal stimulus. The second level of the model refers to the abilities as
a capacity (i.e., they cannot be measured directly) and to the con- 2.1. Participants
ceptualisation of the correlation between Conscientiousness and
fluid intelligence on one side and Openness and crystallized intel- Thestudywasconductedonagroupof105studentsofthethird
ligence on the other side. Considering the long-term effects of Con- gradeofthreehighschoolsinSarajevo,BosniaandHerzegovina.Of
scientiousness and Openness on the development of intellectual the total number of participants 45.7% were males. Average age of
abilities, Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2005) refer to these the participants was M = 17.26 (SD = 0.94.).
twotraitsasthe‘‘investmenttraits’’. In two studies (Moutafi, Furn-
ham, & Paltiel, 2005; Moutafi et al., 2003) a negative correlation
between Conscientiousness and intelligence was determined. In 2.2. Measures
order to explain such results the authors proposed a compensation
hypothesis, according to which comparatively lower capability in Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court,
competitive surroundings is compensated with higher levels of 1998) measure fluid intelligence. They represent a non-verbal test
Conscientiousness. Besides, it is possible that intelligent individu- for the evaluation of the ability to understand complex situations,
als do not become more conscientious over time because they rely find meaning in events and of rational perception and thinking.
onabilities that are sufficient for the execution of every-day cogni- According to Carpenter, Just, and Shell (1990) Raven’s Progressive
tive tasks. The positive correlation between Openness and crystal- Matrices measure analytical intelligence, that is the ability to rea-
lized intelligence is expected, considering the fact that Openness is son and produce a solution for problems involving new pieces of
associated with intellectual curiosity, lively imagination and flexi- information, without extensive use of an explicit store of declara-
bility in behavior (McCrae & Costa, 1997) which could leads to the tive knowledge. They consist of two parts. Series I contain 12 items
higher intellectual involvement and knowledge acquisition. used for practice and lowering test anxiety. Series II consists of 36
Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, and Petrides (2006) tested the items presented in ascending order of complexity (i.e. from easiest
basic premise of the two-level model using Eysenck’s personality to hardest). Work-time is not limited.
model. They explored the correlations between Eysenck’s person- Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1994)isa
ality dimensions operationalised by Eysenck’s Personality Profiler companion measure to the Standard Progressive Matrices and as-
(EPP; Eysenck, Barrett, Wilson, & Jackson, 1992) as Emotional Sta- sesses reproductive ability, that is, being able to master, recall
bility, Introversion, Caution (low Psychoticism) and Dissimulation and reproduce verbal information. It consists of 68 items divided
and verbal and numeric abilities. The results show that Emotional into two segments: Series A (gap filling) and Series B (selection
Stability and Extraversion are positively associated with verbal of the correct answer from several offered). The Mill Hill Vocabu-
abilities, while there was no correlation found between the two lary Scale allows the assessment of the ability to store and recall
personality dimensions and numeric ability. Moreover, they found information and knowledge that is accumulated over time by the
a negative correlation between Caution and numeric abilities. individual fromexperiencesathome,school,orintheenvironment
Overall, the results found were consistent with the two-level and therefore is based on the extensive use of declarative knowl-
model. edge. With regard to definition of crystallized intelligence (Stan-
In regards to the conceptual and componential similarities be- kov, 2000) crystallized abilities are typically measured by a
tween the Big Five and Cattell’s five global dimensions it seems vocabulary test.
N. Djapo et al./Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 63–67 65
Original version of the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale is translated Table 2
ˇ ´ Correlations betweenfluidandcrystallizedintelligence andthe16Personality Factors
and adapted into Croatian language (Krizan & Mateic, 2001).
The Sixteen Personality Factors’ Questionnaire (16PF) was de- (in italic are given corresponding five global factors).
vised by Cattell and associates (Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993). It Gf Gc
is to be used in the assessment of 16 primary personality factors, Warmth(Reserved vs. Warm; Factor A); Extraversion; .284** .028
aswellasfiveglobalfactors.Itconsistsofthe185itemsintheform Tough-Mindedness
*** **
of multiple-choice questions that, except for Factor B, have three Reasoning (Concrete vs. Abstract; Factor B) .433 .418 *
options. Primary factors to be measured with the 16PF Question- Emotional Stability (Reactive vs. Emotionally Stable; .073 .081
Factor C); Anxiety
naire are: A (Warmth); B (Reasoning); C (Emotional Stability), E Dominance (Deferential vs. Dominant; Factor E); .177* .145
(Dominance), F (Liveliness), G (Rule- Consciousness), H (Social Independence
Boldness), I (Sensitivity), L (Vigilance), M (Abstractedness), N (Pri- Liveliness (Serious vs. Lively; Factor F); Extraversion, Self- .073 .142
vateness), O (Apprehension), Q (Openness to Change), Q (Self- Control
1 2 * **
Reliance), Q (Perfectionism), and Q (Tension). The five global fac- Rule-Consciousness (Expedient vs. Rule-Conscious; .238 249
3 4 Factor G); Self-Control
tors and corresponding primary factors are: Extraversion (A+, F+, (a)
Social Boldness (Shy vs. Socially Bold; Factor H); .027 .171
H+, N,Q), Anxiety (C, L+, O+,Q +), Self-Control (F, G+, M, Extraversion, Independence
2 4
*** *
Q +), Independence (E+, H+, L+, Q ), and Tough-Mindedness (A, Sensitivity (Utilitarian vs. Sensitive; Factor I); Tough- .388 .198
3 1 Mindedness
I,M,Q+). The five dimensions of personality were calculated *
1 Vigilance (Trusting vs. Vigilant; Factor L); Anxiety; .178 .107
according to the procedures described in the 16PF Questionnaire Independence
manual (Russell & Karol, 2000). Abstractedness (Grounded vs. Abstracted; Factor M); .067 .022
Self-Control; Tough-Mindedness
Privateness (Forthright vs. Private; Factor N); .242** .014
2.3. Procedure Extraversion
Apprehension (Self-Assured vs. Apprehensive; Factor O); .205* .145
Participants were tested in an auditorium for the three tests, Anxiety
Openness to Change (Traditional vs. Open to Change; .018 .158
during two regular school classes. Time needed to solve the tasks Factor Q1); Independence, Tough-Mindedness
of Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary Self-Reliance (Group-Oriented vs. Self-Reliant; Factor .203* .027
Scale was not limited. Q2); Extraversion
Perfectionism (Tolerates Disorder vs. Perfectionistic; .120 .083
Factor Q3); Self-Control
Tension (Relaxed vs. Tense; Factor Q4); Anxiety .021 .025
3. Results
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
The correlations between the results on the fluid (Gf) and crys- *** p < .001.
tallized (Gc) intelligence tests and five global personality dimen- (a) p = .05.
sions are presented in Table 1. The fluid intelligence scores were
negatively correlated with Extraversion (r = .2121, p< .05) and
Self-Control (r = .207, p < .05) and positively with Tough-Minded-
ness (r = .305, p < .01) while the crystallized intelligence scores Table 3
were positively correlated with Independence (r=.219, p<.05), Standard regressional analysis of five global personality dimensions onto fluid and
and negatively with Tough-Mindedness (r=.216, p<.05). crystallized intelligence.
The correlations between Gf and Gc and the 16 personality fac- Variables Gf Gc
tors are presentedinTable2.Thehighestcorrelationwasfoundbe- b t b t
tweentheGfandthefactorofreasoning(B)(r=.433,p<.001).The Extraversion .329 3.452** .065 .605
Gf were negatively correlated with the factors of Warmth (A) Anxiety .126 1.375 .111 1.070
(r = .284, p < .01), Rule-Consciousness (G) (r = .238, p < .05), Sen- Self-Control .230 2.630** .162 1.637
sitivity (I) (r = .388, p < .001) and Apprehension (O) (r = .205, Independence .366 3.684*** .142 1.271
Tough-Mindedness .396 4.284*** .165 1.587
p<.05), and positively with the factors of Dominance (E) ***
F (5,99) 8.13 2.15
(r = .177, p < .05), Vigilance (L) (r = .178, p < .05), Privateness (N) R .539 .313
(r = .242, p < .01), and Self-Reliance (Q )(r = .203, p < .05). The Gc R2 .291 .098
2
2
were negatively correlated with the factor of Rule-Consciousness AdjR .255 .052
(G) (r = .249, p < .01), and positively with factors of Reasoning ** p < .01.
(B) (r = .418, p < .001), and Sensitivity (I) (r = .198, p < .05), whereas *** p < .001.
the correlation with the factor of Social Boldness (H) is on the bor-
der of statistical significance with p = .05 (r = .171, p = .051).
Withtheaimtoassessthejoint effect of the five global dimen-
sions of personality on the Gf and Gc, two standard multiple regression analyses were performed. The results are shown in
Table 3.
Table 1 Theresults indicate that global dimensions of personality was a
Correlations between fluid and crystallized intelligence tests and five global significant predictor of Gf but not Gc, accounting for 25,5% of var-
personality dimensions.
iance of fluid intelligence scores. The most significant predictor of
Gf Gc Gf was Tough-Mindedness (b=.396), then Independence
Extraversion .211* .065 (b = .366), Extraversion (b = .329) and Self-Control (b = .230).
Anxiety .047 .091
Self-Control .207* .155
*
Independence .129 .219 4. Discussion
** *
Tough-Mindedness .305 .216
* p < .05. This study investigates the relationship between five global
** p < .01. dimensions and 16 factors of Cattell’s model of personality and
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
