J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109 DOI 10.

1007/s10869-007-9051-z

Personality and Intelligence in Business People: A Study of Two Personality and Two Intelligence Measures
Adrian Furnham Georgia Dissou Peter Sloan Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Published online: 18 July 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This study examined the overlap and correlations among two well-known personality measures (NEOPIR; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI) and two widely used intelligence tests (the Graduate Management Assessment (GMA), Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA)). The GMA measures both uid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc), whereas WGCTA mainly assess Gc. A total of over 3,500 participants completed the four measures in a middle management assessment event. Correlational analysis showed that Extraversion on the MBTI tended to be associated with Openness and Stability on the NEO. Intuition was associated with Openness and Introversion. Feeling types tended to be both Agreeable and Neurotic while perceiving types were high on Openness but low on Agreeableness. The NEO Big Five factor of Openness was most consistently and signicantly associated with both measures of intelligence (r = .09 to r =.12). Results from the MBTI showed that Intuition and Perceiving scores were positively and signicantly associated with both intelligence test scores which were intercorrelated (r = .38). Regressional analysis showed that personality traits are logically and coherently related to intelligence test scores. Implications for selection and assessment are considered.

Keywords Personality Intelligence Job performance Personnel selection

Introduction The study of relationship between personality and intelligence has been of interest to both educators and employers (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham 2004, 2005; Dobson 2000). Many universities and companies attempt to select the most capable students or employees from thousands of applicants (Furnham 2002; Van der Berg and Feij 1993). Therefore they need comprehensive, reliable and valid tools to assess the ability of these candidates in order to make the best choice (Costa 1996). Results from many surveys done in Europe suggest about half to two-thirds of big companies use psychometric testing in their assessment of senior managers (Cook 2004; Furnham 2004; Salgado 1997). This study examines the overlap between two of the most widely used international measures of personality and intelligence in business settings. The results have both theoretical and practical implications for measurement.

Intelligence
A. Furnham (&) G. Dissou Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK e-mail: a.furnham@ucl.ac.uk P. Sloan Kaisen Consulting Limited, Bristol, London, UK T. Chamorro-Premuzic Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, University of London, London, UK

One of the most prominent theories of intelligence was proposed by Cattell (1971) who distinguished between two types of intelligence: uid (Gf) and crystallized (Gc). Gf represents information-processing and reasoning ability, that is, inductive, conjunctive, and disjunctive reasoning capability used to understand relations and abstract prepositions (Stankov 2000). Gc refers to the ability to acquire, retain, organize and conceptualize information rather than information processing. Test of Gf requires little previous

123

100

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109

knowledge or learning on the part of the examinee, whereas Gc depends on the knowledge and education acquired in any specic culture. A useful metaphor to describe the relationship between Gf and Gc is that of a computer. While Gf resembles the information processor, Gc would be equivalent to the data and information stored in the memory. Measuring both Gf and Gc is essential since crystallized intelligence, but not uid intelligence, can be inuenced by the social class and educational advantages. Gc, however, is also important because it shows a persons accumulated learning (Stankov et al. 1995). Meta-analyses have revealed that perhaps the single best individual differences predictor of work performance is intelligence (Ackerman and Rolfhus 1999; Bertua et al. 2005; Gottfredson 1997). Over the past quarter-century there is a large and compelling literature showing that intelligence is a good predictor both job performance and training prociency at work (Drasgow 2003). Extensive meta-analytic reviews have shown that intelligence was a good predictor of job performance but particularly in complex jobs (Schmidt 2002). Although debated, researchers suggestion the correlation between intelligence and job performance is around r = .50 (Schmidt and Hunter 1998). The central question is what other factors like personality or social/emotional intelligence (sometimes called social skills) accounts for the rest of the variance in job performance. In referring to g or general intelligence Drasgow (2003) was forced to conclude ......for understanding performance in the workplace, and especially task performance and training performance, g is the key ....g accounts for an overwhelming proportion of the explained variance when predicting training and job performance (p. 126). Similarly, Schmidt and Hunter (2004) found general mental ability predicts both occupational level attained and performance within ones chosen occupation and does so better than any other ability, trait or disposition and better than job experience (p.162). Despite growing problems associated with litigation with respect to the fairness of intelligence (cognitive ability) testing, many organisations recognise the reality of some assessment of ability in addition to educational qualications (Cook 2004; Murphy 2002). This study employed two intelligence tests, namely the Graduate Management Assessment (GMA) and the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA). The GMA was designed by Blinkhorn (1985) to measure numerical reasoning, critical thinking and exibility of thought, and has been used in various studies (Mouta et al. 2002). The GMA is composed of three parts: Verbal, Numerical, and Abstract. The Verbal test is a test of reasoning where test-takers are required to understand the core of the problem, and hence it would be expected to load highly on crystallized ability. It may also relate to Gf since

intelligent people may learn better because they can more effectively connect new information to what they have already learned. The Numerical test involves solving arithmetic problems in a given specic scenario. Obviously such a test on knowledge of simple arithmetic does depend on Gc at least in part. The Abstract reasoning test requires subjects to nd similarities between two groups of patterns and loads highly on Gf (uid intelligence). This test does not depend much on accumulated knowledge and can negate the inuence from social class and education. The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) was constructed by Watson and Glaser (1980) as a measure of critical thinking. It is a test of crystallised ability (verbal reasoning), designed for graduate recruitment and management selection. It consists of ve subsets: drawing inferences from facts; recognising assumptions implicit in statements; drawing deductions from facts; interpretations of statements; and evaluation of arguments. The total score is reliable and it correlates highly on the AH tests (Heim 1965), (which are also measures of verbal reasoning) (e.g. AH6- r = 51; AH4- r = .71, an earlier version of AH tests). This test is used extensively in assessment centres. Personality Personality theorists have developed different models to explain the mechanism of normal personality functioning (Matthews et al. 2003). Costa and McCrae (1992) championed the already established Big Five Factor Model (FFM), which has been widely accepted by most researchers as universally generalizable model in the area of personality structure (Digman 1990; Matthews et al. 2003). According to this model, there are ve higher order personality traits, namely Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, on which people differ. The individual differences refer to stable patterns of behaviours or tendencies, which are independent of each other. Neuroticism refers to the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anxiety, depression, and anger. Extraversion refers to high activity, assertiveness, and a tendency towards social behaviour. Openness-to-experience represents the tendency to get involved in intellectual activities, and a preference for novel ideas and experiences. Agreeableness or sociability refers to friendly, considerate and modest behaviour. Conscientiousness is associated with efciency, determination, responsibility, and persistence (Furnham 2002). Over the last decade there have been dozens of studies that have demonstrated that the Big Five traits are related to various aspects of job performance (Judge et al. 1997; Huntz and Donovan 2000). This study used NEO-PI-R scales derived from the FFM to measure personality traits.

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109

101

Besides the Big Five Factor Model, some psychologists have attempted to classify personality into different types or styles. For example, Myers and McCaulley (1975) have developed the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which is a self-report measure based upon Jungian theory, to measure personality types rather than traits or continuous variables. They proposed that four personal preferences affect how people behave in all situations. They generated four scales: ExtroversionIntroversion, SensingIntuition, ThinkingFeeling, and JudgingPerceiving. Each individual belongs to one opposite on each scale. According to the manual Extraverts relate more easily to the outer world of people and things while Introverts main interests are in the inner world of concepts and ideas. Sensing and Intuition are ways of perceiving: Sensing through the ve senses and known facts while Intuition is more unconscious looking for possibilities and relationships. The two ways of judging are summed up by the opposites of Thinking which stresses logic and impersonal processes and Feeling based more on personal values and judgements. The nal dimension is a combination of perception and judgement with Judging types showing preferences for a planned, decided, orderly way of life while the Perceiving type prefers a exible, spontaneous way of life. The MBTI has been described as the most widely used non-clinical measure of personality in the world (Bayne 2003, p.529). The MBTI is frequently used for the purpose of clinical, counselling, and personality testing (Davito 1985). Various studies have examined type measures of business performance (Rice and Lindecamp 1989). Various studies have examined the overlap between these two measures (McCrae and Costa 1989; McDonald et al. 1994). In a recent study Furnham et al. (2003) found NEO PI-R Extraversion-Introversion, Openness was correlated with Sensing-Intuition, Agreeableness with ThinkingFeeling and Conscientiousness with Judging Perceiving, replicating the ndings of McCrae and Costa (1989). Furnham et al. (2003) conducted that their results attested to the signicant overlap between the NEO PI-R and the MBTI by using a large sample. This does not necessarily mean that the MBTI should be reinterpreted in terms of the FFM. The most important implication of this nding is that research that has been conducted on the areas of overlap on the two tests separately can be joined to provide a more comprehensive picture of the construct of personality (p. 583). Personality and Intelligence This remains a great deal of debate as to the nature of the relationship between personality and intelligence. Some theorists concluded that intelligence test performance may be inuenced by some non-ability traits, but that IQ and

personality are two independent constructs (Zeidner and Matthews 2000). Yet Cattell (1971, 1987) and Ackerman (1996a, 1996b, 1999) found that personality traits, especially Openness, may play a signicant role in the development of intellectual skill acquisition (Gc). Very few studies have looked at the relationship between the MBTI and intelligence though there are two noticeable exceptions. Kaufman et al. (1996) suggested that three MBTI dimensions, apart from EI, were related to intelligence. They tested 1,297 individuals on the MBTI and the KAIT IQ test (which includes measures for uid, crystallised and general intelligence) and found that Intuitive individuals earned higher scores on the general intelligence measure of the KAIT. Similar results were reported by Myers and McCaulley (1975), who found that students scoring higher on the Intuition pole also scored higher on the California Test of Mental Maturity and on the Scholastic Aptitude TestVerbal (SAT-V). This relationship between Intuition and intelligence also has some theoretical basis, as the expanded scales for Intuition on the MBTI Expanded Analysis Report include the adjectives abstract, imaginative, intellectual; theoretical, and original. However, Kaufman et al., (1996) did not nd a signicant relationship between IQ and intuition in a study using 1115 year-olds. Mouta et al. (2002) found the IE and SN dimensions signicantly predicted intelligence test scores. Intuitive types and Introverts scored highest and these two scales accounted for 5% of the variance. Furnham et al. (2005) using another but similar measure to the MBTI (the JTI) which measures the same personality dimensions found Extraversion (rather than Introversion); Thinking (rather than Feeling) and Judging (rather than perceiving) signicantly related to intelligence. A large number of studies have examined the relationship between the NEO-PI Big Five Factor Model and intelligence (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham 2004; Furnham et al. 2005). The results have been consistent in showing essentially two things. First, Openness is positively, and both Neuroticism and Conscientiousness negatively, correlated with various intelligence test scores. Second, only modest amount of variance are accounted for typically in the range 510%. Indeed, in all the studies the effect sizes tend to be low even when highly validated measures are used and various corrections made. However, nearly all of these studies have been conducted on student populations. One mystery is that Conscientiousness and Intelligence have been shown to be positively correlated with work-related outcomes yet those two variables are negatively correlated with each other in student population. Some also found and attempted to explain a negative relationship between Conscientiousness and Intelligence (Mouta et al. 2004). Further experimental studies suggest

123

102

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109

that it is the test-taking anxiety component in Neuroticism that leads high scorers to under-perform on IQ tests. Several theorists suggested that both personality traits and Gf may interact to inuence the development of Gc. For example, Matthews (1999) proposed the adaptive models of intelligence with the assumption that different cognitive patterns are associated with different personality traits. The theory stated that Openness reects the ability of adaptation to academic, artistic, or intellectual environments. Hence, individuals high on Gf would therefore be more likely to develop a more open personality. Other studies have found a signicant negative relationship between Neuroticism and academic performance among university students (Furnham and Medhurst 1995; Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic 2004). Interestingly, extraversion positively correlated with academic performance in elementary school and negatively correlated with academic performance in secondary schools and universities. It has been suggested that highly intellectual able students would be more likely to adopt more serious study habits, while the less able students would become extraverted and socialize with the others due to the incompetence in schools (Anthony 1973; Furnham 2002). This study examined the relationship between personality and intelligence in an assessment centre for middle managers. Whilst these centres often use multiple measures of personality and intelligence this is comparative rare in recruitment and selection which has greater temporal and nancial constructs. The aim of this paper is to explore overlap between the different measures. Method Participants There were a total of 8,709 participants, of which 6,473 (73.3%) of them were male and 2,236 of them were female (25.3%). About 125 participants (1.4%) were dropped from further analysis due to missing data from their questionnaires. Not all participants completed all measures so numbers in the analysis vary but are always over 3,000. In all 27.5% were managers of managers, 27.2% supervisors/ managers, and 13.5% specialists. Participants were all middle/senior managers who were taking part in an assessment centre sponsored by their organisation. Questionnaires Participants completed four measures: 1. The Graduate Management Assessment (GMA-A). The GMA-A is a high level test of abstract reasoning ability. It measures the ability to think conceptually, to 2.

discover underlying pattern within a set of information and to switch easily between contexts and levels of analysis. This test composed of three parts: Verbal, Numerical, and Abstract. Each part takes 30 min to complete. The Verbal test presents candidates with a short piece of factual prose together with four statements. Respondents have to decide whether the statements are true, false or cannot tell from the information provided. The participants are encouraged to detach themselves from their own beliefs and prejudices when answering the questions. The Numerical test presents the subjects with a short scenario, followed by three questions. Respondents have to choose a right answer from a set of 16 possible responses. It aims at testing the problem-solving skills of the participants. The Abstract test to observe two groups of patterns and recognize the similarities or differences between them. This assessment is designed to emphasis stages of thinking leading up to insight into the nature of a solution. Each participants score is compared with the benchmark range of a sample of managers and professional staff that were mostly graduates. Participants who score within the benchmark range can think in conceptual and abstract ways and are more likely to see the order and disregard irrelevant information when analysing a problem. About 70% of the comparison group comes from this range. Participants who score outside of this range are more likely to use familiar approach to solve a problem and may have difculty in dealing with unstructured information. The total number of right answers yielded by each participant was computed for analysis. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA). The WGCTA is a test of crystallized intelligence (verbal reasoning) and comprises ve subtests that address the theoretical concept of critical thinking and issues of practical applications. The ve sub-tests are: (1) Inference-discriminating among degrees of truth of inference drawn from given data, (2) Recognition of Assumptionsrecognizing unstated assumptions or presuppositions in given statements or assertions, (3) Deductiondetermining whether certain conclusions necessarily follow from information in given statements or premises, (4) Interpretation weighing evidence and deciding if generalizations based on the given data are warranted, and (5) Evaluation of Argumentsirrelevant to a particular issue (Watson and Glaser 1994). Each sub-test includes scenarios that describe problems, statements, arguments, and interpretations experienced in daily life in both work and educational settings. Note that the ve sub-tests contribute to the composite of the WGCTA,

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109

103

3.

4.

but individually, the sub-tests are insufcient measures of critical thinking (Watson and Glaser 1994). The total number of right answers yielded by each participant was computed for analysis. NEO Personality Inventory Forms S (NEO-PI; Costa and McCrae 1992). The NEO Personality Inventory is a widely used self-report measure in both clinical and non-clinical settings. It was based on the Big Five Factor Model (FFM) of trait personality. The ve factors or dimensions of personality structure are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Each dimension has six facets. This inventory consists of 240 selfdescriptive statements on ve-point Likert scales and anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree to rate the extent to which statement describes the persons self. The inventory yields 30 scores from second order factors and 5 domain scores. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator-Form G (MBTI; Myers and McCalley 1975). The Myers-Briggs indicator is a self-report measure based on Jungs (1971) theory, which suggested four types of personality tendencies (ExtraversionIntroversion; SensationIntuition, ThinkingFeeling, and JudgingPerceiving). This inventory composed of 94 forced-choice items that consists the four bipolar discontinuous scales representing each personality tendency. Respondents are classied into one 16 personality types based on the largest score obtained for each bipolar scale. (e.g. a person scoring higher on Introversion than Extraversion, Intuition than Sensation, Feeling than Thinking, and Judging than Perceiving would be classied as an Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Judging type). (Furnham et al. 2003; Mouta et al. 2004). Various studies have used MBTI and showed that the inventory had satisfactory validity and reliability (Furnham and Stringeld 1993).

Deviation for all measures. Results show rst reasonable overlap between the two personality measures. Neuroticism is associated with being an Introverted and Feeling type. Naturally the highest correlation is between both test measures of Extraversion. Extraversion on the NEO was also associated with being an Intuitive and Perceiving type. Agreeableness was associated only with being a Feeling type and not a Thinking Type. Conscientiousness was associated only with being a Thinking and particularly Judging type. These are in broad agreement with studies in the area (Furnham et al. 2003). The two intelligence tests were naturally positively correlated (r = .38) at a relatively low level (explaining only 15% of the variance) but fairly typical of research in this area (Furnham et al. 2005). The NEO factors most closely associated with the intelligence scores was Openness. Equally for the MBTI Introverted, Sensing, Perceiving types achieved higher scores on both intelligence tests. Regressional Results Tables 2 and 3 show the two regressions with the two intelligence test scores being regressed onto the Big Five from the NEO. Results were consistent: Stable, Open, nonConscientious Introverts achieved highest intelligence test scores. The NEO results showed that these ve factors accounted for around 35% of the variance which is consistent with other studies. This supports previous research. (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham 2004; Mouta et al. 2004). Table 3 shows similar regressional results for the MBTI. Although the pattern of results is similar, the association are stronger for the Watson-Glaser test. The TF and JP dimension showed strongest association (see Table 4). The pattern was particularly interesting in that for both the TF and JT dimension extreme scores were associated with lower score on intelligence tests (see Table 3). From Table 3 it seems the MBTI accounts for more of the variance on the NEO in predicting intelligence test scores. These results only partially replicate a similar study but with different measures of both variables (Furnham et al. 2005). Subscale (Primary Factor) Analysis All the previous analyses looked at Super-factor Big Five correlates of intelligence. However, a ner grain analysis of the primary factors can show in much more clarity, which primary factors predict intelligence. Four things are clear from Table 5. First, whilst some primary factors within a super trait consistently predicts intelligence (i.e. O5/Ideas in Openness); others do not (i.e. O3/Feelings in Openness). Second, whilst some primary factors within a super trait are positively correlated with

Procedure Participants were recruited from a middle management assessment centre, where they were required to complete these questionnaires amongst other exercises. A psychological consultancy ran the one-day long course and attendance was compulsory. A trained and certied assessor gave each manager feedback on the results of the questionnaires. Results Correlational Results Table 1 shows the full correlational matrix and the larger correlations in bold. It also shows Means and Standard

123

104 Table 1 Correlations between the four test scores X SD X E I S N T F J P GMA WG 1821<n>3707 Correlations of r .05 are signicant at P < .01 for the smallest sample Table 2 The Big Five and the GMA and WG (Regression results) GMA Beta Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness .07 .04 .11 .03 .14 F (5,4272) = 24.69*** Adj.R2 = .03 * P < .05 ** P < .01 *** P < .001 t 3.96** 2.26* 6.38*** 1.87 8.15*** WG Beta .15 .11 .16 .04 .11 16.11 10.16 11.97 12.91 17.24 4.84 16.80 10.93 48.81 63.21 SD 5.94 6.20 7.50 5.91 6.61 3.95 6.27 6.41 28.57 7.65 .24 .25 .13 .11 .20 .23 .00 .01 .00 .07 .71 .72 .25 .20 .02 .02 .14 .14 .00 .01 .28 .28 .62 .58 .16 .15 .26 .26 .09 .12 .00 .01 .01 .01 .40 .29 .06 .07 .01 .01 N 65.50 19.43 E 127.19 18.23 O 121.06 18.57 A 118.59 15.71

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109

C 132.94 17.40

GMA 48.81 20.57

WG 63.21 7.65

.12 .13 .10 .12 .24 .26 .45 .46 .12 .07

.03 .05 .12 .12 .08 .04 .07 .08 .38

.07 .08 .18 .19 .06 .02 .06 .09

t 7.59*** 5.27*** 8.19*** 2.24* 5.40***

F (5,3324) = 27.02*** Adj.R2 = .04

intelligence (i.e. N5/Impulsiveness) others within same traits are consistently negatively associated with intelligence (i.e. N1/Anxiety). Third, there is reasonable consistency in the pattern of signicant trait predictors of the two tests, though equally some notable exemptions when the trait is a signicant predictor for the one test but not the other (E4/Activity). Finally, whilst these traits are signicant predictors they tend only to account for around three percent of the variance. As in all previous studies in this area it is apparent that Openness is the best predictor of intelligence specically the primary factor O5: Ideas.

Discussion The MBTI was marginally the most signicant predictor of intelligence (GMA, WGCTA). The MBTI explained 3.6%

variance of the GMA scores and 8.2% variance of WGCTA scores (see Table 3). Individuals who were Introverted were more likely to have higher intelligence for both uid intelligence (GMA, WGCTA) and crystallized intelligence (WGCTA). These results supported the nding of the study by Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2003a, 2003b), who found a negative correlation between Extraversion and academic achievement amongst university students. Furnham et al. (2003) also found introverted managers tended to score higher on intelligence tests. Introverted individuals may invest more time on intellectually benecial activities and focus more on their inner world than extraverted individuals. In a meta-analytic review of the many and scattered papers on the relationship between extraversion and intelligence, Wolf and Ackerman (2005) noted two things. First, the size of the correlations were small and that results did depend on the tests

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109 Table 3 The MBTI and the GMA & WE (Regression results) GMA Beta E I S N T F J P .07 .14 .03 .08 .14 .10 .05 .09 F (8, 2594) = 9.76*** Adj.R2 = .03 * P < .05 ** P < .01 *** P < .001 Table 4 The MBTI and the GMA & WG (Regression results) GMA Beta EI SN TF JP .03 .04 .05 .06 F (4,4290) = 9.62*** Adj.R2 = .01 * P < .05 ** P < .01 *** P < .001 t 0.22 2.48** 3.22*** 3.63*** WG Beta .02 .04 .05 .05 F (4,4263) = 7.02*** Adj.R2 = .01 t 0.15 2.24* 3.48*** 3.13** t 1.40 2.68** 0.63 1.85 3.92** 2.84** 0.84 1.73 WG Beta .03 .16 .06 .14 .27 .27 .33 .34 F (8,3324) = 21.09*** Adj.R2 = .08 t 0.55 2.74** 1.15 2.78** 6.59*** 6.68*** 4.91*** 5.09***

105

used. Second, the age of the sample made a difference such that as people got older the correlation changed from positive to negative. This supports ideas that early developers at rst behave more socially condent and extraverted than their peers, peak earlier, and appear thereafter more introverted (Anthony, 1973). It also supports the idea that extraverts have the advantage in the easy going educational world of primary school but introverts in the more structured and formal world of secondary and tertiary education. Feeling and Thinking types were negatively related to cognitive ability. That is, both individuals who rely too much on subjective evaluation and individuals who emphasize on logical reasoning were less able to reason abstractly. It is perhaps surprising that Thinking is negatively correlated with intelligence as Thinking types are supposed to prefer logical analysis of problem. It is also interesting those extreme scores both are equally related to lower intelligence level. This may be an index of inexi-

bility and the problems of extreme scores (Furnham 2006). However, results from the TF dimension show similar results to Furnham et al. (2005). The relationship between MBTI and WGCTA was almost congruent to the relationship between MBTI and GMA, except that Judging and Perceiving were also found to relate positively with WGCTA. This further conrmed the predictability of intelligence by MBTI scales. Judging and Perceiving individuals were more likely to have high crystallized intelligence. Judging individuals have higher crystallized intelligence probably because they have great organization skills that allow them to organize information better and thus absorb knowledge more effectively. Perceiving individuals are characterized as exible and prefer to keep their options opened. They may be more capable of accepting different explanations for a problem and see the bigger picture of a situation. Hence they have higher ability to think critically. At rst this explanation is perhaps contradicted by the fact that Consciousness is negatively

123

106 Table 5 Big Five factor scores and the intelligence test scores GMA Beta N1 Anxiety N2 Hostility N3 Depression N4 Self-consciousness N5 Impulsiveness N6 Vulnerability .05 .06 .05 .04 .09 .09 F (6,4262) = 10.89*** Adj. R2 = .03 E1 Warmth E2 Gregariousness E3 Assertiveness E4 Activity E5 Excitement seeking E6 Positive emotions .00 .06 .03 .01 .06 .03 F (6,4263) = 4.11*** Adj.R2 = .01 O1 Fantasy O2 Aesthetics O3 Feelings 04 Actions 05 Ideas O6 Values .04 .10 .03 .00 .17 .08 F (6,4263) = 27.58*** Adj.R2 = .04 A1 Trust A2 Straight/ Forwardness A3 Altruism A4 Compliance A5 Modesty A6 Tender- Mildness .08 .02 .02 .03 .06 .06 F (6,4263) = 8.27*** Adj.R2 = .01 C1 Competence C2 Order C3 Dutifulness C4 Achievement C5 Self-discipline C6 Deliberation .05 .09 .00 .06 .05 .03 F (6, 4263) = 15.58*** Adj.R2 = .02 * P < .05 ** P < .01 *** P < .001 2.60 4.94*** 0.30 2.85** 2.88* 1.91 4.54*** 0.76 1.00 1.69 3.52** 3.16 2.77* 5.63*** 1.53 0.25 9.38*** 5.02*** 0.28 2.76** 1.75 .59 3.61*** 1.24 t 3.66*** 3.20*** 1.94 2.15 5.16*** 4.54*** WG Beta .09 .04 .05 .00 .07 .04

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109

t 3.51*** 1.93 1.82 0.03 3.46*** 1.80

F (6,3323) = 8.22*** Adj.R2 = .02 .03 .07 .03 .08 .00 .12 F(6,3324) = 5.96*** Adj.R2 = .01 .04 .11 .03 .02 .20 .13 F (6,3324) = 32.13*** Adj.R2 = .05 .15 .06 .11 .04 .03 .06 F (6,3324) = 17.92*** Adj.R2 = .03 .10 .19 .06 .03 .08 -.03 F (6, 3324) = 23.89*** Adj.R2 = .04 4.58*** 9.25*** 2.81** 1.46 3.21** 1.48 8.09*** 2.82** 5.21*** 1.93 1.36 3.14 1.75 5.27*** 1.34 0.80 9.96*** 6.65 1.31 2.92** 1.11 3.65*** 0.37 0.76

correlated with intelligence (see Tables 1 and 2). As noted in Table 5 it is the facet order which is most signicantly correlated with lower intelligence test scores.

However it does remain a problem to explain positive correlations between Conscientiousness, and Intelligence, and work performance but negative correlations between

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109

107

Conscientiousness and Intelligence. This important issue merits further work. The EI of MBTI was a signicant predictor of WGCTA with a positive relationship. This nding was contrary to the previous literature and the nding from GMA in this study, which found a negative relationship between Extraversion and intelligence. However, there may be difference between the intelligence measured by GMA (Gf and Gc) and the intelligence measured by WGCTA (Gc). Probably extraverts enjoy socializing with people and acquire higher verbal skills. Hence, they scored higher in the verbal reasoning tests (WCGTA). The results of this study only partly replicate those of Kaufman et al. (1996) and Mouta et al. (2004). Both found Intuition to be the strongest predictor with the TF and JP dimensions playing very little role whereas in this study they were the more signicant predictors. It is interesting to note that MBTI manuals nearly always point out that the measure is not a measure of ability. Whilst it may have set out to be neither a measure of cognitive ability nor psychopathology it clearly correlates with both. Further it is reassuring that similar results are found with different measures of cognitive ability as well as different measures of the Jungian personality dimension (Furnham et al. 2005). Nevertheless when the data on the MBTI and Big Five are compared in their ability to predict education/occupational outcomes the latter always appears to be more successful (Costa 1996; Furnham 2002; McCrae and Costa 1989). This is most likely to be the result of the MBTI not measuring Neuroticism (although this is correlated with Feelings) or Conscientiousness which have been consistently shown to be the two most consistent, robust and signicant predictors of success at work (Judge et al. 1997; Judge et al. 1999; Judge et al. 2002). Further the NEO-PI-R has superior psychometric properties in terms of evidence of reliability and validity over the MBTI (Furnham et al. 2003). With regard to the Big Five results, individuals who scored high in Conscientiousness in NEO-PI tended to score low in GMA. It must be noted however that despite the signicance of these results the size of the correlations is very modest. This nding supported the results of previous studies reporting negative relationship between Gf scores and Conscientiousness in participants (e.g. job applicants) who were assumed to have been highly motivated to obtain high scores on ability tests (Mouta et al. 2002, 2004). Mouta has argued that low intellectual capacity would tend to lead to high Conscientiousness. The rationale underlying this negative relationship is that less able individuals in a competitive educational or work environment may become more conscientious over time as a way of compensating for their low intellectual ability

(Furnham 2002; Mouta et al. 2002, 2004). Conversely, those highly able (Gf) people tend to be less conscientious (Dutiful, Organized) because they can achieve their goals by relying on their native ability (Furnham 2002). Whether this applies to the work of work however is much less clear. Neuroticism was shown to be a signicant predictor of WGCTA and had a negative relationship with WGCTA. In other words, individuals with lower control over their negative emotions, experience more anxiety and depression, have lower critical thinking ability. Lack of control over ones emotions is the common characteristic of personality disorders. Neuroticism was found to be highly correlated with various types of disorders, which may have negative impact on peoples problem solving skills. It is, therefore, not surprising that neuroticism undermines peoples logical thinking. The results are similar to many other studies in the area which shows thee is a logical, signicant but very modest overlap between personality and ability measure. Often when validated psychometric personality measures (of various sorts) are regressed onto psychometrically validated cognitive ability measures they account for between 3 and 10% of the variance (Mouta et al. 2005). However the relative lack or correlation may be of particular interest because it is known that both variables independently predict educational and occupational outcomes (ChamorroPremuzic and Furnham 2005). Thus there is now increasing evidence that both ability (high general intelligence) as well as personality factors, particularly stability (vs. Neuroticism) and Conscientiousness predict exam success (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham 2003a, b) but also employee absence (Judge et al. 2002), job satisfaction (Judge et al. 2002), career success across the life span (Judge et al. 1999) as well as actual earnings (Nyhus and Pons 2005). Together personality and ability factors may account for as much as 2030% of the variance in real life outcome measures. In this sense they have extremely salient predictive validity.

Conclusion There are several implications of the results from this study. It should be noted that although the size of the sample was big and representative enough to have condence in the power of the study, there might be correlation ination due to item overlap. The inter-correlations between personality traits and personality types implies that researchers in personality types may benet from reading the research by trait psychologists on the mechanisms and processes that account for the behaviour associated with related traits (Eysenck and Eysenck 1985).

123

108

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109

The debate between the Big Three or Four or Five in psychology is both about theory and psychometrics. Certainly researchers have tended to favour either the Big Three or the Big Five conceptualisation of personality because of the psychometric work on scale development, the parsimony of description and the theoretical mechanisms underlying the different traits (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham 2005, 2006). Most is probably known about the physiology of Extraversion and Neuroticism and the arousal hypothesis set out in the former. This naturally raises issues in test choice and redundancy. If tests have been shown to be logically and highly inter-correlated (McCrae and Costa 1989), the question for both practitioner concerned with the cost and time of test administration and scoring and the trait researcher interested in psychometric validity is that of redundancy. That is, is there any advantage to be had in using more than one test of personality (preference) or ability (power)? The answer to the question lies primarily in the concept of incremental validity: that is, to what extent does a second test add anything in terms of both explanation and variance accounted for. It is probably true that though a longer test nearly all researchers would argue for the NEO-PI-R because of its psychometric properties and its extensive and impressive research base. On the same criteria they would no doubt choose the WGCTA as a measure of intelligence. This study has found signicant overlap between the measures of personality traits and types. Moreover, it has been shown that measures of personality traits and types can both predict intelligence test scores. Educators and business managers can use these tests in their selection processes to predict both non-ability traits and ability traits. It should be noted however that the MBTI is nearly always regarded more as a counselling than a selection instrument. It has also attracted both less and more critical empirical research than the more traditional and well established trait measures of Cattell (1971), Costa and McCrae (1992) and Eysenck and Eysenck (1985). Personality traits and types were found to be signicant predictors of intelligence. These measures provide rich data for generating selection criteria for both educators and business rms who are interested in predicting human performance. Indeed the current models in the area all suggest that it is necessary to measure both personality (traits) and intelligence (cognitive ability) to fully describe and understand an individuals competence and potential. This study had, like all others, potential limitations. This common method could have inated the self-report (i.e. personality test) correlations. Equally given the circumstances under which these participants were being tested then may be some evidence of dissimulation on the personality measures, though this is not regarded as threatening their validity (Furnham 1986). It may also have been

desirable to obtain and partial out important demographic factors like participants age and education.

References
Ackerman, P. L. (1996a). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227257. Ackerman, P. L. (1996b). Intelligence as process and knowledge: An integration for adult development and application. In W. Rogers & A. Fisk (Eds.), Aging and skilled performance: Advances in theory and applications (pp. 139156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlhaum. Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Traits and knowledge as determinants of learning and individual differences: Putting it all together. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, et al. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 437462). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology. Ackerman, P. L., & Goff, M. (1994). Typical intellectual engagement and personality: Reply to Rocklin (1994). Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 150153. Ackerman, P. L., & Rolfus, E. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence. Psychology and Aging, 14, 314330. Anthony, W. (1973). The development of extraversion, of ability, and of relation between them. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 223227. Bayne, R. (2003). Love, money and studying. The Psychologist, 16, 529531. Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78, 287409. Blinkhorn, S. (1985). Graduate and managerial assessment manual and user guide. Dorchester: Dorset. Blinkhorn, S., & Johnson, C. (1990). The insignicance of personality testing. Nature, 348, 671672. Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifin. Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York: Springer. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal studies British university students. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319338. Chamorro- Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality traits and academic exam performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237250. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for understanding the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249264. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Intellectual competence. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: a third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10, 251267. Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1999). Personality, disorder and personality disorder: Towards a more rational conceptualisation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 13, 142151. Cook, M. (2004). Personnel selection. Chichester: Wiley. Costa, P. (1996). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R in industrial/organizational psychology. Applied Psychology, 45, 225241. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:99109 Davito, A. (1985). A review of the MBTI. In J. Mitchell (Ed.), North Mental Measurement Yearbook. Dobson, P. (2000). An introduction into the relationship between neuroticism, extraversion and cognitive test performance in selection. Applied Psychology, 45, 225241. Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the ve-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417440. Drasgow F. (2003). Intelligence and the workplace. In W. Borman, R. Ilgen & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, (Vol.12, pp. 107129). New York: Wiley. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences. New York: Plenum. Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385400. Furnham, A. (2002). Personality at work. London: Routledge. Furnham, A. (2004) Personality and organisation: European perspectives on personality assessment in organisations. In B. Schneider & D. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organisations (pp. 2559). Mahwah, NJ.: LEA. Furnham, A. (2006). The personality disorders and intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 4246. Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 943955. Furnham, A., & Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 197208. Furnham, A., & Stringeld, P. (1993) Personality and work-performance: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator correlates of managerial perfromance in two cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 145153. Furnham, A., Mouta, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The relationship between the revised NEOpersonality inventory and the MyersBriggs Type Indicator. Social Behaviour and Personality, 31, 577584. Furnham, A., Mouta, J., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Intelligence in relation to Jungs personality types. Individual Difference Research, 3, 213. Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537552. Gottfredson, L. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 70132. Heim, A. (1965). Tests AHS. London: NFER. Huntz, E., & Donovan, J. (2000). Personality and job performance. The big ve resulted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869879. Judge, T., Heller, D., & Mount, T. (2002). Five factor model of personality and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530541. Judge, T., Martcchto, J., & Thoresen, C. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745755. Judge, T., Higgins, C., Thorensen, C., & Barrick, M. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general metal ability and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621652. Jung, C. (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kaufman, A., McLean, J., & Lincoln, A. (1996). The relationship of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to IQ level and the uid and crystallized IQ discrepancy on the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT). Assessment, 3, 225239. Matthews, G. (1999). Personality and skill: a cognitive-adaptive framework. In P. Ackerman, P. Kyllonen & R. Roberts (Eds.), The future of learning and individual difference research (pp. 251270). Washingthon DC: APA. Matthews, G., Deary, I., & Whiteman, M. (2003). Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

109 McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the ve-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 1740. McDonald, D., Anderson, P., Tsagarakis, C., & Holland, J. (1994). Examination of the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the NEO personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 74, 339344. Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality DSM-III: Axis II. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Mouta, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2002). Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the NEOpersonality inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 7994. Mouta, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is concientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 10131022. Mouta, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Can personality factors predict intelligence? Personality and Individual Difference, 38, 10211037. Mouta, J., Furnham, A., & Tsaousis, I. (2006). Is the relationship between intelligence and trait Neuroticism mediated by test anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 587598. Murphy, K. (2002). Can conicting perspectives on the role of g in personnel selection be resolved. Human Performance, 15, 175186. Myers, I., & McCalley, M. (1975). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. Nyhus, E., & Pons, E. (2005). The effect of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 363389. Rice, G., & Lindecamp, D. (1989). Personality types and business success of small retailers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 177182. Salgado, J. (1997). The Five model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 3043. Schmidt, F. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187210. Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research ndings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262274. Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work. Journal of Applied Psychology., 86, 162173. Stankov, L. (2000). Complexity, metacognition, and uid intelligence. Intelligence, 28, 121143. Stankov, L., Boyle, G. J., & Cattell, R. B. (1995). Models and paradigns in personality, intelligence research. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International Handbook of personality and intelligence. Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 1543). New York: Plenum Press. Van der Berg, T., & Feij, J. (1993). Personality traits and job characteristics as predictors of job experiences. European Journal of Personality, 7, 337357. Watson, G. & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal manual. The Psychological Corporation/Marcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, San Antonio, TX. Watson, G., & Glaser, E. (1994) Watson-Glaser Cortical Thinking Appraisal Form S (WGCTA). Washington: Psychological Corportation. Wolf, M., & Ackerman, P. (2005). Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytical investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 543555. Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 581610). New York: Cambridge University Press.

123