Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 141146

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The biasing effect of personality on self-estimates of cognitive abilities in males and females
Lydia Soh, Kate E. Jacobs
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Wellington Rd., Clayton, Vic. 3800, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
In addition to exploring the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated measures of Crystallized Knowledge (Gc) and Visual Processing (Gv), this study investigated whether personality signicantly moderated these relationships, thereby inuencing the accuracy of the self-estimates. Adult participants (N = 165) completed the Big Five Inventory and self-estimated their levels of Gc and Gv. They were subsequently administered the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery II, a group test of cognitive ability. Signicant and positive relationships between psychometric Gc and Gv and their respective self-estimates were found. Additionally, investigation of the moderating effects of personality for each gender separately using standard multiple regressions found that females high in Extraversion and males low in Conscientiousness were more prone to overestimating their Gv ability, while males high in Openness provided more accurate estimates of their Gv than those low in Openness. Elucidating the personality traits that distort self-perceptions of intellectual functioning has signicant implications for the identication of individuals at risk of harboring inaccurate expectations, leading to the potential for interventions aimed at ameliorating associated deleterious consequences. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 10 December 2012 Received in revised form 6 February 2013 Accepted 19 February 2013 Available online 14 March 2013 Keywords: Self-estimates cognitive abilities Personality CattellHornCarroll

1. Introduction To successfully negotiate everyday life people require an adequate measure of insight into their own abilities and limitations (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003). However, selfperceptions of cognitive ability are largely found to be inaccurate, generally in the direction of positive bias (Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998). Inaccurate self-perceptions can interfere with the likelihood of achieving valuable life goals in educational and occupational domains, ultimately resulting in reduced levels of psychological well-being (Beyer, 1990, 1998; Freund & Kasten, 2012). Consequently there has been a growing interest in this eld of research. Since psychometric measures of cognitive ability only explain around 10% of variance in corresponding self-estimates (Freund & Kasten, 2012; Furnham, 2001; Mabe & West, 1982), research has focused on identifying the non-cognitive factors that inuence these self-perceptions. While the direct effects of personality on self-estimates of cognitive abilities has been extensively researched (e.g., Ackerman & Wolman, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic, Mouta, & Furnham, 2005; Furnham & Buchanan, 2005; Furnham & Dissou, 2007), the extent to which personality inuences the accuracy of self-estimates has been largely overlooked. Therefore this

study investigated whether personality traits systematically bias self-perceptions of intellectual functioning by testing it as a moderator of the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated cognitive abilities.

1.1. The relationship between psychometric and self-estimates of cognitive abilities Self-estimates of cognitive ability embody individual differences in levels of awareness regarding how well an individual can perform on intellectually challenging tasks (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006). The accuracy with which people estimate their cognitive ability level is assessed by comparing self-estimates to psychometrically derived test scores of the same cognitive abilities. Narrative and meta-analytic reviews of this research have consistently found correlations around r = .30 (Freund & Kasten, 2012; Furnham, 2001; Mabe & West, 1982; Paulhus et al., 1998), suggesting that people possess only limited self-insight. However, variations in methodology between extant studies have been metaanalytically determined to moderate the strength of the effect sizes obtained. For example, self-estimates of cognitive abilities obtained using measures that require comparison to others have been found to produce signicantly greater validity coefcients than those that do not (Freund & Kasten, 2012; Mabe & West, 1982). Though not tested as a moderator of the self-estimate and psychometric cognitive ability relationship, another methodological

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9902 4884; fax: +61 3 9905 5127.
E-mail addresses: lydiasoh91@gmail.com (L. Soh), Kate.Jacobs@monash.edu (K.E. Jacobs). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.013

142

L. Soh, K.E. Jacobs / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 141146

variation between studies is the theoretical model of intelligence used, with Gardners (1993) multiple intelligences (MI) theory a commonly employed model (e.g., Furnham, 2009; Furnham, Kidwai, & Thomas, 2001; Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2008). While MI theory has been widely applied in the educational realm (Barrington, 2004; Gardner & Hatch, 1989), its validity has been seriously questioned due to a lack of empirical evidence (Waterhouse, 2006). Additionally, the theory lacks standardized and psychometrically valid measures (Visser et al., 2008) meaning that previous research assessing the accuracy of self-estimates of cognitive abilities using Gardners (1993) model employed criterion tests not developed explicitly as operationalizations of the constructs contained within the MI model. Therefore, the conclusion of previous research that individuals are largely incapable of providing accurate self-estimates of their intellectual ability may have been erroneously reached due to the use of an intelligence model that lacks validity and adequate measures. In contrast to MI theory, the CattellHornCarroll (CHC) model provides researchers with cognitive ability constructs that are extensively validated and operationalized (Alfonso, Flanagan, & Radwin, 2005; Schneider & McGrew, 2012). Future research assessing the accuracy of self-estimates of cognitive abilities would therefore benet from the application of this theoretical model.

1998), consequently enabling self-perceptions to more closely reect reality. The ndings of Jacobs et al. (2012) constitutes a signicant advancement in the self-estimates of cognitive abilities research eld which has paid limited attention to the extent to which non-cognitive factors systematically bias self-perceptions of ability. However, replication of this study is required to assess the validity of the results. Further, only three of the Big Five factors were investigated as moderators and despite the consistent nding of gender differences in self-estimates of cognitive abilities (Syzmanowicz & Furnham, 2011), analyses were run using the genders combined. Therefore further research investigating the moderating effect of all ve personality traits on the accuracy of self-estimates of cognitive abilities for males and females separately is needed. 1.3. The current study In addition to investigating the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated cognitive abilities, this study examined whether personality inuenced the accuracy of these self-perceptions. Out of the 10 broad cognitive abilities currently encapsulated by the CHC model, Gc and Gv were chosen for investigation as they are considered theoretically analogous to Gardners (1993) Verbal and Spatial intelligences, respectively (Carroll, 1993), thereby allowing hypotheses to be based on previous research. Based on the research reviewed above it was hypothesized that: H1: Psychometric Gc and Gv positively predicts self-estimates of Gc and Gv, respectively. H2: Neuroticism and Agreeableness do not moderate the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gc and Gv (for both males and females). H3: Extraversion moderates the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gv (for both males and females) with those high in Extraversion overestimating their abilities. H4: Extraversion does not moderate the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gc (for both males and females). H5: Openness moderates the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gc and Gv (for both males and females) with those low in Openness overestimating their abilities. H6: Conscientiousness does not moderate the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gc and Gv (for both males and females). 2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants were 165 Australian adults (predominantly university students), 87 female and 78 male, aged 1859 years (M = 26.02, SD = 9.07) with 79.4% reporting English as their rst language. With regards to highest level of education completed, 0.6% did not complete high school, 42.4% completed high school, 6.7% vocational/ technical training certicate, 23.6% Bachelors degree, 24.9% postgraduate degree, 1.7% other, and 0.1% no response. 2.2. Materials 2.2.1. Self-estimates of cognitive abilities Self-estimates of cognitive abilities were obtained using a slight adaptation of the measure employed by Jacobs et al. (2012) which was developed to be similar to that used extensively in previous research by Furnham and colleagues (Furnham, 2001). An image of a normal distribution of IQ scores with corresponding percentile ranks and descriptive labels (e.g., standard score of 100 with a

1.2. The relationship between personality and self-estimates of cognitive ability While a number of non-cognitive variables have been investigated as predictors of self-estimates of cognitive abilities (e.g., gender and self-esteem), personality (most often operationalized using the Five Factor Model) has received a considerable degree of attention. Results have been largely consistent with those low in Neuroticism and Agreeableness, and high in Extraversion and Openness, providing the highest self-estimates (Furnham & Buchanan, 2005; Furnham & Dissou, 2007; Furnham, Mouta, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005; Furnham & Thomas, 2004; Furnham et al., 2001). Further, when the Big Five are used simultaneously to predict self-estimates of cognitive abilities, the amount of variance explained (up to 17%; Furnham & Thomas, 2004; Furnham et al., 2001) is greater than that often accounted for by psychometric measures (around 10%; Freund & Kasten, 2012). This implies that self-perceptions of ability are more dependent on personality than actual level of cognitive functioning. Recently, Jacobs, Szer, and Roodenburg (2012) proposed that personality may in fact moderate the relationship between selfestimate and psychometric measures, thereby inuencing the accuracy of these self-perceptions. Using 189 participants recruited from a university setting, the authors tested whether Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Extraversion impacted the accuracy of self-estimates of Crystallized knowledge (Gc), Visual processing (Gv), and Fluid reasoning (Gf). While no personality traits were found to moderate the accuracy of Gc self-estimates, and Neuroticism was not established as a signicant moderator, participants high in Extraversion were identied as more prone to overestimating their Gf and Gv abilities, while the self-estimates of introverts were largely accurate. The greater time introverts spend in selfreection (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002), or the tendency for extraverts to possess self-perceptions that are positively biased (Davies, French, & Keogh, 1998), were suggested as possible reasons for this nding. Additionally, participants low in Agreeableness were found to be inclined to overestimating their Gf ability, while self-estimates provided by agreeable people were largely accurate. It was proposed that by suppressing the propensity to be stubborn, individuals high in Agreeableness are more receptive to criticism and feedback (Haville, Besevegis, & Mouroussaki,

L. Soh, K.E. Jacobs / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 141146

143

percentile rank of 50 was labeled average) was presented to participants along with denitions of Gc and Gv. A written description of the normal distribution and its relation to standard IQ scores was provided to participants along with instructions to estimate the score they believed they would receive on a test of Gc and Gv in comparison to others of the same age. 2.2.2. Big Five Inventory (BFI; Soto & John, 2009) This 44-item self-report inventory measures Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience, with responses made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Alpha reliabilities for the subscales range from .75 to .90 (M = .83) and have strong convergent validity (mean r = .81) with Costa and McCraes (1992) NEO Five Factor Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999). 2.2.3. Multidimensional Aptitude Battery II (MAB-II; Jackson, 2003) The MAB-II is a group administered multiple-choice paper-andpencil test of intellectual ability developed based on the WAIS-R. It contains 10 subtests with individual items being adapted so as to be suitable for use with an Australian sample (e.g., arithmetic items were converted from imperial to metric measurement). Literature classifying the WAIS-R subtests according to CHC theory (i.e., Alfonso et al., 2005) was used to select MAB-II subtests that provide a measure of Gc (Information, Comprehension, Similarities, and Vocabulary) and Gv (Picture Completion, Spatial, Picture Arrangement and Object Assembly). Reliabilities for these subtests range from .70 to .96, while convergent validity coefcients with corresponding WAIS-R subtests between .65 and .89 have been reported (Jackson, 2003). 2.3. Procedure Though recruitment occurred predominantly on a university campus, student researchers working on the project also invited family and friends to participate in order to obtain a more representative sample. Participants were initially sent a link to an online survey to be completed at a time and place of their convenience. The survey contained the BFI and additional self-report measures not relevant to this study. Subsequently participants attended a group testing session (lasting two hours) where they rst self-estimated their Gc and Gv abilities followed by administration of the MAB-II. 3. Results Three univariate outliers were identied (two on Conscientiousness and one on Agreeableness) however all were retained as inspection of the 5% trimmed mean indicated a negligible impact on the data (Pallant, 2011). Inspection of Mahalanobis distance (p < .001) indicated no multivariate outliers. Means, standard

deviations, and correlations for all variables are presented in Table 1. Means for both psychometric Gc and Gv were above the general population average of 100, with corresponding standard deviations being less than 15, indicating a restriction of range. Thus the current sample was found to possess on-average higher levels of intelligence than the general population. Cronbach alpha values for the BFI subscales, also presented in Table 1, were all satisfactorily high (Pallant, 2011). Using effect size guidelines established by Cohen (1988), self-estimated Gc had moderate signicant positive correlations with both psychometric Gc and Openness, and selfestimated Gv had moderate signicant positive correlations with psychometric Gv and Openness. All remaining personality variables did not signicantly correlate with self-estimates of Gc or Gv. The moderating effect of personality on the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gc and Gv was investigated using standard multiple regressions and applying recommendations provided by Aiken and West (1991). Analyses were run for males and females separately using the less strict alpha level of .10 when determining the signicance of the interaction terms due to the difculty associated with statistically detecting signicant moderator effects (Holmbeck, 1997). Results are presented in Tables 2 and 3 for males and females, respectively. While no personality trait signicantly moderated the Gc relationship, the Gv relationship was signicantly moderated by Openness and Conscientiousness in males and Extraversion in females. Results of post hoc probing are presented subsequently. For the moderating effect of Extraversion on the Gv relationship in females (refer to Fig. 1), the signicance test of psychometric Gv for each slope indicated that the slope for the low Extraversion regression line was signicant (b = .63, t = 3.94, p < .001), while the slope for the high Extraversion regression line was not (b = .16, t = 1.16, p = .25). The direction of the slope indicated that those with low levels of Extraversion had self-estimated Gv scores that were signicantly higher at higher levels of psychometric Gv than they were at low levels of psychometric Gv. In contrast, when Extraversion was high, self-estimates of Gv remained stable regardless of whether psychometric Gv was high or low. For the moderating effect of Openness on the Gv relationship in males (refer to Fig. 2), the signicance test of psychometric Gv for each slope indicated that the slope for the high Openness regression line was signicant (b = .63, t = 3.68, p < .001), while the slope for low Openness regression line was not (b = .23, t = 1.66, p = .10). The direction of the slope indicated that when Openness was high, self-estimated Gv scores increased as psychometric Gv increased. In contrast, when Openness was low, self-estimates of Gv were consistent across high and low levels of psychometric Gv. For the moderating effect of Conscientiousness on the Gv relationship in males (refer to Fig. 3), the signicance test of psychometric Gv for each slope indicated that the slope for the high Conscientiousness regression line was signicant (b = .71, t = 3.30,

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for self-estimates of cognitive abilities, psychometric cognitive abilities, and personality 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Self-estimated Gc Self-estimated Gv Psychometric Gc Psychometric Gv Extraversion Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness Conscientiousness .51** .44** .27** .11 .37** .11 .15 .12 2 .26** .40** .07 .31** .15 .11 .06 .60** .13 .29** .10 .17* .12 .16* .14 .17* .21** .15 3 4 5 6 7 8 M 109.47 107.13 112.75 110.07 3.18 3.57 2.88 3.68 3.45 SD 13.71 14.01 12.21 13.08 0.70 0.74 0.57 0.62 0.61 a .82 .87 .76 .82 .80

.09 .25** .07 .22**

.11 .08 .03

.34** .13

.29**

Note: Gc = Crystallized knowledge; Gv = Visual processing; a = Cronbachs alpha. p < .05 (2-tailed). ** p < .01 (2-tailed).
*

144

L. Soh, K.E. Jacobs / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 141146

Table 2 Interaction terms from standard multiple regressions of personality as moderators of the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gc and Gv for males (N = 78) Moderators Gc b Extraversion Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness Conscientiousness .08 .13 .03 .13 .13 R
2

Gv Adj. R .21 .25 .15 .18 .17

2

F 8.00 9.13** 5.66* 6.69** 6.26**

**

p .55 .23 .84 .32 .31

b .17 .20* .08 .06 .27*

R2 .16 .25 .14 .14 .16

Adj. R2 .12 .22 .11 .10 .13

F 4.62** 8.19** 4.08** 4.00* 4.74**

p .21 .07 .54 .63 .08

.24 .27 .19 .21 .20

**

Note: Beta weights reported are from the interaction terms between the centered personality traits and centered psychometric cognitive abilities in males. p < .01. p < .001.

Table 3 Interaction terms from standard multiple regressions of personality as moderators of the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gc and Gv for females (N = 87) Moderators Gc b Extraversion Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness Conscientiousness .02 .03 .04 .30 .00 R2 .19 .25 .17 .17 .16 Adj. R2 .16 .22 .14 .14 .13 F 6.55 9.41** 5.61* 5.50** 5.40**
**

Gv p .92 .78 .71 .79 .99 b .22 .17 .12 .07 .02
*

R2 .19 .23 .12 .13 .12

Adj. R2 .16 .20 .09 .10 .08

F 6.61** 8.20** 3.88* 4.20** 3.60*

p .04 .10 .28 .51 .87

Note: Beta weights reported are from the interaction terms between the centered personality traits and centered psychometric cognitive abilities in females. p < .05. ** p < .001.
*

115

125
Self-Estimated Gv

110

120 115 110 105 100 95 90 (-)1SD

Psychometric Gv
Low Openness (b = .23) High Openness (b = .63*)

Self-Estimated Gv

105 100 95 90 85 (-)1SD (+) 1SD

Low Extraversion (b = .63*) High Extraversion (b = .16)

(+) 1SD

Psychometric Gv
Fig. 1. Regression lines for the relationship between psychometric and selfestimated Gv, as moderated by Extraversion, in females. p < .01.

Fig. 2. Regression lines for the relationship between psychometric and selfestimated Gv, as moderated by Openness, in males. p < .01.

p < .001), while the slope for the low Conscientiousness regression line was not (b = .24, t = 1.65, p = .10). The direction of the slope indicated that for those with high levels of Conscientiousness, self-estimated Gv scores were higher at higher levels of psychometric Gv compared to low levels of psychometric Gv. In contrast, when Conscientiousness was low, self-estimates of Gv were consistent across high and low levels of psychometric Gv.

4. Discussion While nding signicant and positive relationships between psychometric and respective self-estimates of Gc and Gv was consistent with previous research, the size of the relationships found in this study (r = .44 and .40 for Gc and Gv, respectively) was greater than that often observed in previous research (around r = .30; Freund & Kasten, 2012; Furnham, 2001; Mabe & West, 1982; Paulhus et al., 1998). This may be attributed to application of the robust

CHC model when dening cognitive abilities and selecting criterion tests, thus leading to reduced measurement error. The moderating effect of Extraversion on the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gv in females indicated that females low in Extraversion provided more accurate self-estimates than those high in Extraversion who demonstrated a propensity for overestimation. Whether this nding resulted from the likely higher levels of self-awareness possessed by introverts due to spending greater time in self-reection (Matthews et al., 2002), or is due to the higher levels of condence possessed by extraverts (Davies et al., 1998), is currently uncertain. However, that this result held only for females indicates that the moderating effect of Extraversion observed in the Jacobs et al. (2012) study likely resulted from the disproportionately greater number of females compared to males. The moderating effect of Openness on the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gv in males indicated that males high in Openness provided more accurate self-estimates of Gv than

L. Soh, K.E. Jacobs / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 141146

145

120 115
Self-Estimated Gv

110 105 100 95 90 85 (-)1SD

Psychometric Gv
High Conscientiousness (b = .71*) Low Conscientiousness (b = .24)

(+) 1SD

Fig. 3. Regression lines for the relationship between psychometric and selfestimated Gv, as moderated by Conscientiousness, in males. p < .01.

broader and more balanced populations is needed. Additionally, future research employing more factorially complex measures of personality (such as the NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) would be able to investigate whether particular Big Five subfacets are predominantly responsible for the biasing effects observed. In conclusion, the current study not only conrms results reported in previous research but expands knowledge by rstly identifying additional personality traits that systematically bias selfperceptions of cognitive ability, and secondly by highlighting that the effects of personality on the accuracy of self-estimates of cognitive abilities is both domain and gender specic. Since inaccurate self-evaluations of cognitive abilities have the potential to negatively impact psychological health and the attainment of important life goals, the identication of those most at risk of developing negative self-fullling prophecies is important as it would provide the potential for early interventions aimed at calibrating selfperceptions.

those low in Openness who tended to overestimate their ability. The greater opportunities for feedback open individuals experience due to their greater inclination towards involvement in intellectual activities (Furnham, Swami, Arteche, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2008) could be the reason behind their more realistic self-perceptions. The nding that Neuroticism and Agreeableness did not moderate the Gv relationship in either males or females is consistent with the results of Jacobs et al. (2012). In contrast to expectations however was the nding that Conscientiousness moderated the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gv in males such that males high in Conscientiousness provided more accurate self-estimates of Gv than those low in Conscientiousness who displayed a propensity for overestimation. The negative relationship sometimes observed between psychometric intelligence and Conscientiousness has been attributed to a compensatory effect in that less intelligent individuals become more organized, thorough, persistent, and methodical in order to cope with their relative disadvantage (Mouta, Furnham, & Crump, 2003; Mouta, Furnham, & Paltiel, 2004). This theory thus implies a level of self-awareness regarding cognitive functioning which is consistent with the results of this study. No personality trait moderated the relationship between psychometric and self-estimated Gc; a nding consistent with that of Jacobs et al. (2012) and seemingly indicative of the insusceptibility of Gc self-estimates to the inuence of biasing variables. In contrast to Gv, Gc is highly inuential in academic achievement (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006) and thus individuals may associate self-perceptions of this ability to the feedback received from academic processes (Wolf, 2007). Thus it seems that the more uncertain an individual is about their ability in a particular domain, such as with Gv (and Gf as found in Jacobs et al., 2012), the greater the inuence of constructs that should be irrelevant to estimating ones cognitive abilities (i.e. non-cognitive variables such as personality). That a greater number of personality traits were found to predispose males to overestimation compared to females may help explain the consistent sex differences in self-estimates of cognitive abilities in favor of males observed in past research (Syzmanowicz & Furnham, 2011). Why some personality traits incline males and not females (and vice versa) to inaccuracy in self-perceptions of cognitive functioning is currently uncertain and presents a fruitful area for future research. Whether the results of the current study will replicate to samples more representative of the true range of intellectual ability is currently uncertain given previous research indicating that the more intellectually able possess greater self-insight (Dunning et al., 2003; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Clearly further research with

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank David Di Sipio, Andrew Hone, Sally Kanno, Jana Mennsick, Jessica Newhouse, and Zarina Seksembaeva who assisted with data collection.

References
Ackerman, P. L., & Wolman, S. D. (2007). Determinants and validity of self-estimates of abilities and self-concept measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 5778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.13.2.57. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury, CA: Sage. Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwin, S. (2005). The impact of the CattellHorn Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 185202). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Barrington, E. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: How multiple intelligence theory can help. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 421434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000252363. Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 960970. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.59.5.960. Beyer, S. (1998). Gender differences in self-perception and negative recall bias. Sex Roles, 38, 103133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018768729602. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10, 251267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.3.251. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Mouta, J., & Furnham, A. (2005). The relationship between personality traits, subjectively-assessed and uid intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 15171528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2004.09.018. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO personality inventory (revised) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Davies, M. F., French, C. C., & Keogh, E. (1998). Self-deceptive enhancement and impression management correlates of EPQ-R dimensions. Journal of Psychology, 132(4), 401406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599274. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognise their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 8387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01235. Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2006). The achievement test desk reference (ATDR): A guide to learning disability identication (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Freund, P. A., & Kasten, N. (2012). How smart do you think you are? A meta-analysis on the validity of self-estimates of cognitive abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 296321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026556. Furnham, A. (2001). Self-estimates of intelligence: culture and gender difference in self and other estimates of both general (g) and multiple intelligences. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 13811405. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00232-4. Furnham, A. (2009). The validity of a new, self-report measure of multiple intelligence. Current Psychology, 28, 225239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s12144-009-9064-z.

146

L. Soh, K.E. Jacobs / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 141146 of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 11211134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037// 0022-3514.77.6.1121. Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280296. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037//0021-9010.67.3.280. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mouta, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 7994. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.471. Mouta, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 10131022. doi: 1013-1022. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, M. S. M. (1998). Self-report measures of intelligence: Are they useful as proxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality, 66, 525554. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00023. Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). The CattellHornCarroll model of intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99144). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 8490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jrp. 2008.10.002. Syzmanowicz, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). Gender differences in self-estimates of general, mathematical, spatial and verbal intelligence: Four meta analyses. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 493504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.lindif.2011.07.001. Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). What makes you think youre so smart? Measured abilities, personality, and sex differences in relation to selfestimates of multiple intelligences. Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 3544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.29.1.35. Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41, 207225. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1. Wolf, P. J. (2007). Academic improvement through regular assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 690702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01619560701603114.

Furnham, A., & Buchanan, T. (2005). Personality, gender and self-perceived intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 543555. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.011. Furnham, A., & Dissou, G. (2007). The relationship between self-estimated and testderived scores of personality and intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 3744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.28.1.37. Furnham, A., Kidwai, A., & Thomas, C. (2001). Personality, psychometric intelligence, and self-estimated intelligence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 16, 97 114. Retrieved from <http://www.sbp-journal.com/index.php/sbp>. Furnham, A., Mouta, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Personality and intelligence: Gender, the Big Five, self-estimated and psychometric intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 1124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00296.x. Furnham, A., Swami, V., Arteche, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). Cognitive ability, learning approaches and personality correlates of general knowledge. Educational Psychology, 28, 427437. Furnham, A., & Thomas, C. (2004). Parents gender and personality and estimates of their own and their childrens intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 887903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.011. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). London, England: Fontana. Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18, 410. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1176460. Haville, V. L., Besevegis, E., & Mouroussaki, S. (1998). Agreeableness as a diachronic human trait. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. C. F. Halverson, & I. Mervielde (Eds.), Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Counselling and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.65.4.599. Jackson, D. N. (2003). Multidimensional aptitude battery-II: Technical manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessments. Jacobs, K. E., Szer, D., & Roodenburg, J. (2012). The moderating effect of personality on the accuracy of self-estimates of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 744749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.040. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102138). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difculties in recognizing ones own incompetence lead to inated self-assessments. Journal