Personality and Intelligence




Personality and Intelligence

Amidst the ebbs and flows of debates within psychology, the enduring concepts of “personality” and “intelligence” continue to hold sway as two paramount and influential constructs. These concepts stand as pillars in both scholarly discourse and everyday dialogues on psychological phenomena, owing to their wide-ranging significance. Rooted in the depths of human nature, they are thought to underlie cognition, motivation, and behavior across diverse contexts. By unraveling these beliefs, psychology strides towards comprehending, predicting, and enhancing vital aspects of human behavior and development.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% OFF with 24START discount code


While personality and intelligence share the role of encapsulating consequential individual differences in human functioning, they diverge in their orientations. Personality is a lens through which we examine the “content” of human experience—delving into the core of thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and actions, and exploring their intricacies, arrangements, and meanings. On the other hand, intelligence takes on the role of addressing “effectiveness,” focusing on how individuals navigate their existence in relation to internally or externally defined benchmarks of accomplishment.

In essence, personality and intelligence are like facets of a multifaceted gem, each capturing a distinct dimension of human complexity. Through the lens of personality, we uncover the nuances that shape who we are, revealing the rich tapestry of our inner world. Meanwhile, intelligence shines a spotlight on our adaptive prowess, assessing our adeptness at surmounting the challenges life presents. By weaving these concepts into the fabric of psychology, we strive to illuminate the profound mysteries that define the human experience.

The intricate interplay between personality and intelligence unfolds across psychological landscapes for three compelling reasons. Firstly, the quest to unearth whether specific dimensions, archetypes, or configurations of personality align with efficacious (intelligent) behaviors in pivotal life scenarios fuels inquiry. In parallel, concerns arise about nonconforming personality traits that might hinder or obstruct the channels through which intelligent behaviors flow. Lastly, a burgeoning realization gains traction: assessments of intelligence can only bear fruit if they are harmonized with the aspirations and backdrops that mold an individual’s personality.

Within the annals of psychology, a trove of studies has embarked on these inquiries, each bearing its unique stamp on the dialogue. Most follow the “nomothetic” path, where a common set of dimensions or categories (think personality traits, core abilities, diagnostic labels) attempts to paint a comprehensive portrait of all individuals. However, a recent wave has swayed towards a more intricate perspective, spotlighting the intricate dance between personality and intelligence. This fresher lens suggests that the benchmarks used to gauge intelligence should be tailored to each individual, drawing on their unique personality attributes. In this “idiographic” journey, the contours of personality lead to divergent criteria for intelligence assessment. This novel perspective resonates within frameworks that champion personal and societal goals as the bedrock of intelligence criteria (think Cantor & Harlow, 1994; Ford, 1994). These frameworks, often casting light on the selective influence of life’s contexts and cultural nuances in shaping personal and societal ambitions, thrive at the forefront of theoretical and empirical explorations into motivation, creativity, wisdom, social and practical intelligence, and beyond (Ford, 1992; Maciel, Heckhausen, & Baltes, 1994; Sternberg, 1985).

Psychometric Approaches to Personality and Intelligence: Dimensional Linkages

The psychometric avenue, while widely traversed, has proven to be a less fruitful terrain for comprehending the intricate interplay between personality and intelligence. Anchored in the nomothetic tradition, this approach posits a modest number of trait or ability dimensions as the bedrock underlying various facets of intellectual and social conduct. Armed with these dimensions, multivariate correlational analyses endeavor to trace the overlaps and intersections of personality and intelligence profiles. A plethora of such studies has been conducted, spanning both the realms of personality and intelligence.

However, the psychometric journey grapples with uncertainties. Is there a consensus to be reached about the pivotal dimensions for encapsulating personality and intelligence? In the pantheon of personality frameworks, one finds the “Big Three” (Eysenck, 1991) and “Big Five” (McCrae & Costa, 1997) models rubbing shoulders with Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor taxonomy (Cattell, 1971). While these frameworks share common ground, they also reveal notable discrepancies over which traits deserve the mantle of fundamental (Eysenck, 1991). Similarly, the landscape of intelligence theories spans from single or dual factors (like “g” or general intelligence; fluid and crystallized intelligence) to models housing an array of primary abilities, numbering anywhere from half a dozen to well over a hundred (think multiple intelligences; Guilford’s Structure of Intellect) (Sternberg, 1982). Against the backdrop of a storied yet uncertain history in the quest for these underlying dimensions, the pursuit of a singular “optimal” description of personality and intelligence for all humans seems elusive. And, perhaps, such a singularity might not even be desirable, given the tapestry of attributes, talents, and challenges that diversify human experience across settings and cultures.

Furthermore, irrespective of the quantity of categories, the quest to bridge the psychometric gaps between personality and intelligence yields a paucity of correlations that hold both statistical and theoretical significance (Zeidner, 1995). This outcome prompts psychometric theorists to often merge intelligence into their favored personality frameworks as a response to the challenge of encompassing the shared variance of both domains. In essence, the endeavor to pigeonhole individuals into overarching trait or ability dimensions has yet to yield the profound insights sought into the dynamic interplay of personality and intelligence.

Psychoeducational and Psychopathology Approaches to Personality and Intelligence: Categorical Linkages

In the realm of personality research and within practical fields like special education, clinical psychology, and counseling, a more pragmatic yet still nomothetic perspective has taken root, showcasing cognitive-emotional-behavioral “types” or diagnostic classifications that delineate distinct groups of individuals with shared attributes. This approach deviates from the psychometric tradition by eschewing universal dimensions in favor of these descriptive groupings. While maintaining its own limitations, this approach has proven significantly more valuable in terms of real-world applications.

Applied professionals, particularly those in educational settings, commonly employ standardized diagnostic categories to define prototypical patterns of social, emotional, and intellectual functioning that span both personality and intelligence domains (Braden, 1995). These categories often implicitly or explicitly encapsulate the interplay between intellectual limitations and their impact on personality dynamics, or vice versa. For instance, students categorized as mentally challenged or having learning disabilities may exhibit limitations or vulnerabilities that permeate not just academic or vocational endeavors, but also scenarios that inherently shape personality development (e.g., social learning experiences with peers or societal stereotypes surrounding specific disabilities). These experiences’ cumulative influence can, in turn, bolster or hinder intellectual growth and utilization of existing intellectual capacities. Conversely, students contending with emotional or attention-related disorders might be seen as potentially thriving in academic contexts, provided the high-intensity arousal processes (like anger, anxiety, or depression) or the underlying cognitive patterns can be effectively regulated (through interventions such as medication or behavioral strategies).

Within clinical and counseling psychology, the spotlight falls on various forms of psychopathology that can erode effective functioning. These disorders are often defined through symptom constellations (syndromes) linked to agreed-upon diagnostic labels. These syndromes mirror extensive thought, emotional, perceptual, and behavioral patterns (akin to personality configurations) that frequently culminate in unintelligent conduct or present substantial barriers to the cultivation of more adaptive behavior patterns (Endler & Summerfeldt, 1995). These categories encompass a range of personality disorders, such as paranoid, schizoid, antisocial, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, and passive-aggressive disorders, along with various mood disorders.

In both educational and clinical contexts, this categorical approach has showcased the intimate fusion of personality and intelligence as they mutually shape and are shaped by cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes.

Goal-Based Approaches to Personality and Intelligence: Motivational Linkages

In the more tailored idiographic perspective, the nexus between personality and intelligence emerges chiefly from an individual’s “personal goals” — their aspirations for desired or undesired outcomes — and the choices and endeavors stemming from these goal-oriented efforts (Cantor & Harlow, 1994; Ford, 1992, 1994; Sternberg & Spearswerling, 1998). This framework leans towards competence cultivation and personal evolution, as opposed to focusing on personality or intellectual dysfunctions, although its applicability extends to the latter (e.g., Ford, 1995).

At the core of this approach lies the notion that gauging effective functioning (intelligence) within a particular domain only becomes meaningful when an individual is actively pursuing substantial goals within that domain. Goal selection can be driven by self-directed motives (in accordance with personal interests and priorities) or contextual factors (in line with cultural and situational opportunities), but in both cases, intelligence surfaces as the manifestation of realizing personally significant goals within vital life contexts.

This paradigm encompasses personality by interpreting it primarily through an individual’s assortment of core goals or life pursuits. In this light, the essence of an individual’s personality lies in the goals they recurrently chase in daily life and the strategies employed to achieve those aspirations. The thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and actions linked to goal pursuit are believed to be consolidated in steady cognitive constructs called “schemas” (Cantor & Harlow, 1994; Ford, 1992). Authentically assessing intelligence in this framework involves scrutinizing the effectiveness of these schemas in guiding thoughts and actions across different contexts and over time.

While goal-centered analyses of personality and intelligence are applicable to all age groups, the potential utility of this perspective is particularly pronounced for adolescents and adults (Ford, 1994; Maciel et al., 1994). As life trajectories diverge, understanding what individuals are striving to achieve becomes pivotal before making judgments about their intelligence or its context-specific manifestations. Ford (1994) introduced the concept of “personal intelligence” to elucidate how idiographic intelligence assessment could function within this model. His “Assessment of Personal Intelligence” template assesses progress within an individual’s major goal domains based on seven effectiveness dimensions: breadth of general goal-relevant knowledge, depth of specialized knowledge, performance accomplishments, ease of functioning, adeptness under challenge, generative adaptability, and the rate of learning or behavior change.

Sternberg and Spear-Swerling’s (1998) concept of “personal navigation,” spotlighting self-direction, adaptability, and surmounting obstacles, also advances goal-based models linking personality and intelligence. Unconventionally, personal navigation spotlights both individual and environmental contributions to an individual’s functioning’s effectiveness and substance. It diverges from conventional psychological concepts by emphasizing potential change in what people do and how effectively they do it. Analogous to a game of Scrabble, personal navigation underscores the necessity to adjust to shifting circumstances and leverage existing and future opportunities to the fullest. This concept underscores that with the right blend of motivation, skills, and fortuity, one can continually construct new capabilities and accomplishments upon the bedrock of personality and intelligence developed over a lifetime.

Harmonizing Objectives: Exploring the Interaction between Personality and Intelligence via Motivation

In the nuanced idiographic approach, the intersection of personality and intelligence is primarily guided by an individual’s “personal goals” — their aspirations for desired or undesired outcomes — and the decisions and endeavors that stem from their pursuit of these goals (Cantor & Harlow, 1994; Ford, 1992, 1994; Sternberg & Spearswerling, 1998). This framework leans towards cultivating competence and personal growth, as opposed to merely focusing on personality traits or intellectual dysfunctions, although it is also relevant to the latter (e.g., Ford, 1995).

At its core, this perspective asserts that assessing effective functioning (intelligence) within a specific domain becomes meaningful only when an individual actively pursues significant goals within that domain. Goal selection can be driven by self-directed motivations (aligned with personal interests and priorities) or contextual factors (in line with cultural and situational opportunities). In either case, intelligence becomes evident as the manifestation of achieving personally meaningful goals within crucial life contexts.

This perspective incorporates personality by defining it primarily through an individual’s set of core goals or life pursuits. Accordingly, the essence of an individual’s personality is encapsulated by the goals they consistently pursue in everyday life and the strategies they employ to accomplish these goals. The thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and actions linked to goal pursuit are posited to be consolidated in stable cognitive structures called “schemas” (Cantor & Harlow, 1994; Ford, 1992). Authentic assessments of intelligence within this framework entail examining the effectiveness of these schemas in guiding thought and action across various contexts and over time.

While goal-based analyses of personality and intelligence are applicable across all age groups, the potential value of this perspective is especially pronounced for adolescents and adults (Ford, 1994; Maciel et al., 1994). As life trajectories diverge, understanding an individual’s aspirations becomes crucial before making inferences about their intelligence or its domain-specific manifestations. Ford (1994) introduced the concept of “personal intelligence” to elucidate how idiographic intelligence assessment could be operationalized within this model. His “Assessment of Personal Intelligence” template assesses an individual’s progress within major goal domains across seven dimensions of effectiveness: breadth of general goal-relevant knowledge, depth of specialized knowledge, performance achievements, ease of functioning, adeptness under challenges, generative adaptability, and the pace of learning or behavior change.

Sternberg and Spear-Swerling’s (1998) concept of “personal navigation,” emphasizing self-directedness, adaptability, and overcoming obstacles, also advances goal-based models that link personality and intelligence. This concept deviates from traditional psychological constructs by spotlighting both individual and environmental contributions to effective functioning and its substance. Unlike conventional frameworks, “personal navigation” underscores the potential for significant change in both behavior and its effectiveness. Analogous to a game of Scrabble, personal navigation underscores the need to adapt to evolving circumstances and maximize opportunities. It highlights that, with the right blend of motivation, skills, and circumstances, individuals can consistently build new capabilities and accomplishments upon the foundation of personality and intelligence cultivated throughout their lives.

References:

  1. Braden, J. P. (1995). Intelligence and personality in school and educational psychology. In D. H. Saklofske. & M. Zeidner (Eds.). International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 621-650). New York: Plenum Press.
  2. N., & Harlow, R. (1994). Social intelligence and personality: Flexible life-task pursuit. In R. J. Sternberg. & P. Ruzgis (Eds.). Personality and intelligence (pp. 188- 217). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth. and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  4. Endler, N. S., & Summerfeldt, L. J. (1995). Intelligence. personality. psychopathology. and adjustment. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.). International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 249-284). New York: Plenum Press.
  5. Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12. 773-790.
  6. Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
  7. Ford, M. E. (1994). A living systems approach to the integration of personality and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg. & P. Ruzgis (Eds.). Personality and intelligence (pp. 188-21 7). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Ford, M. E. (1995). Advances in motivation theory and research: Implications for special and remedial education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 70-83.
  9. Maciel, A. C., Heckhausen, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1994). A lifespan perspective on the interface between personality and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg. & P. Ruzgis (Eds.). Personality and intelligence (pp. 61-103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist. 52. 509-516.
  11. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1982). Handbook of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  13. R. J., & Spear-Swerling. L. (1998). Personal navigation. In M. Ferrari, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Self-awareness: Its nature and development (pp. 219-245). New York: Guilford Press.
  14. Zeidner, M. (1995). Personality trait correlates of intelligence. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.). International Irandbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 299-319). New York: Plenum Press.

Back to Developmental Psychology