IMAGINATION, COGNITION AND PERSONALITY, Vol.

25(2) 119-145, 2005-2006

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOMETRIC AND SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE, CREATIVITY, PERSONALITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

ADRIAN FURNHAM JANE ZHANG University College London TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC Goldsmiths College London

ABSTRACT

This longitudinal study aimed to explore the nature of the relationships between personality Big Five as measured by the (NEO PI-R), psychometric and self-estimated intelligence (Ravens, Wonderlic and Baddeley Tests) and creativity (Barron Welsh Test). A model was developed which proposed that both self-estimated intelligence (SEI) and creativity (SEC) as well as the Big Five personality traits, predicted both psychometric intelligence and creativity which in turn predicted academic performance. Results showed that Openness was significantly correlated with, and predicted, fluid intelligence (Ravens) as well as psychometric Creativity (Barron Welsh). SEI was found to be predictive of intelligence scores on all three IQ tests. Openness to Experience (positively) and Conscientiousness (negatively) was found to predict psychometric Creativity. Males gave consistently higher estimates than females in SEI and SEC. Academic performance was found to be predicted by trait Conscientiousness, and also by Baddeley (fluid intelligence). Implications of this study are discussed.

INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, there has been an increase in research into the relationship between intelligence and personality (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004a,
119 2006, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

120 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

2004b). The majority of studies investigating the relationship between personality factors and psychometric intelligence have yielded small but replicated effects (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, 2005; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2003). There have also been various studies on the relationship between self-estimated and psychometrically measured personality and intelligence (Furnham & ChamorroPremuzic, 2004a,b; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Moutafi, 2004). This study extends this research program by adding self-assessed and psychometric creativity to the above variables. In a theoretical model (see Figure 1) we examine to what extent three psychometrically measured variables (creativity, personality and intelligence) and two self-assessed variables (creativity, intelligence) predict academic performance. A central issue is whether a) creativity is related to university based grades (academic achievement) and b) whether self-assessed factors add an incremental validity over psychometrically assessed variables. PERSONALITY TRAITS AND INTELLIGENCE In a review of the literature Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic (2004a) suggested it was possible to draw links between intelligence and each of the Big Five Personality factors. Openness to Experience is repeatedly found to be the personality factor most influential on intelligence in this area of research (Furnham & Thomas, 2004; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). In particular it correlates very strongly with crystallized intelligence reporting correlations of up to r = .40 (Brand, 1994; Goff & Ackerman, 1992) and more recently r = .50 (ChamorroPremuzic, Furnham & Moutafi, 2004). Neuroticism, in particular the elements of anxiety, angry hostility and depression, has been found to be modestly negatively correlated with intelligence in various studies (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Hembre, 1988, Zeidner, 1995). This can be explained by the negative effects that anxiety can have on performance in academia and IQ tests. This reasoning is supported by Ackerman and Heggestads (1997) findings of a substantial negative correlation between self-reported test anxiety and general intelligence test performance. Extraversion has been occasionally positively correlated with intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Lynn, Hampson & Magee, 1984), although correlations are rather modest. It seems that this relationship may be dependent on the type of test used and precisely what it measures. Zeidner (1995) argued that extroverts have an advantage in performance taskswhich use quick acquisition of automatic motor sequences; however, introverts have an advantage in verbal tasksusing superior associative learning ability. This type of assertion addressing test conditions and test type can be explained through the different personalitys responses to arousal in Eysenck and Eysencks (1985) arousal theory.

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

121

Conscientiousness has been found to be rather weakly related to intellectual abilities (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Moutafi (2005) reported a significant negative correlation between Conscientiousness and Baddeley Reasoning Test (BRT) measured intelligence (fluid intelligence). They suggested that this could possibly be due to the participants with lower fluid intelligence compensating for this in a high pressure academic environment with dedication, determination and studious habits which are all indicative of Conscientiousness. Furnham and Thomas (2004) reported that in general, there were few significant correlations between Conscientiousness and intelligence, although, interestingly conscientiousness is strongly and repeatedly positively correlated with performance in both work and academia (Barrick & Mount, 1994; De Raad, 1996; Goff & Ackerman, 1992). There seems to be near zero correlations between Agreeableness and intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997), because the major components of agreeableness such as trust, modesty and compliance seem to have no bearing on actual intellectual ability but may influence self evaluations of ability. It seems that personality and psychometric intelligence are only mostly related indirectly with mediation from other factors such as self-estimated intelligence (SEI) or test-taking style. SEI, AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH INTELLIGENCE AND PERSONALITY Research into SEI and actual intelligence performance has shown the two factors to be significantly positively correlated between r = .30 and r = .50 (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004a; Moutafi, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2004). Recent research into this area has shown predictable correlations between SEI and psychometric intelligence test performance (Paulus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998; Furnham, 2001) and has highlighted the importance of introducing SEI into the personality-intelligence relationship. Indeed it lies at the heart of the model proposed by Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004a). The model places self-assessed intelligence as a moderator and mediator variable between personality traits and measures of both crystalized and fluid intelligence. Personality variables, as a whole, has been found to predict SEI, accounting for up to 17% of SEI variance in one study (Furnham & Thomas, 2004). Repeated studies indicate that Neuroticism is associated with lower levels of SEI (Furnham & Thomas, 2004; Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, 2005) which can be explained by Neuroticism also being related to poor self-concept (Wells & Matthews, 1994). Extraversion, notably self-confidence, was positively linked with higher levels of SEI (Furnham & Thomas, 2004; Furnham, Kidwai, & Thomas, 2001). Openness to Experience was also found to correlate positively with SAI

122 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

(Subjectively assessed intelligencesame as SEI). Furnham and Thomas (2004) also found that Agreeableness was negatively correlated with SEI, as one of the major components of Agreeableness is modesty, which by nature suggests lower self-evaluation. One recent article study by Furnham et al. (2005) found that personality variables weakly predict IQ performance (intelligence) but SEI acts as a mediator between these factors, thus personality directly predicts SEI and in turn, SEI directly predicts IQ performance. Multiple regressions in a study by Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic and Moutafi (2005) using the Baddeley Reasoning Test and the Wonderlic Personnel Test (which are both used in this study), showed that psychometric intelligence was predicted by Conscientiousness and SEI, and that SEI was again negatively predicted by Neuroticism (mainly anxiety) and Agreeableness (mainly modesty). Interestingly, SEI was correlated with different types of intelligence in each gender; in males it was numerical intelligence (r = .40) and in females it was spatial and verbal (r = .55 and r = .42 respectively) and results tended to indicate that males also overestimated over females in mathematical and spatial intelligences compared to females (Furnham, 2001). Differences in gender again affected SEI with females generally tending to give lower SEIs than males, a finding that is in consensus with abundant research into gender differences in self-reported ability. This study is also concerned with the relationship between intelligence, personality and SEI, but also with measures of creativity and the yet unused measure of self-estimated creativity (SEC). CREATIVITY, INTELLIGENCE, AND PERSONALITY Sternberg and Lubart (1995) believed that the universal factors required for creativity must be novelty (e.g., originality and newness) and appropriateness, whilst others believe that creativity is defined in terms of a specific process or mechanism (Weisberg, 1986). Indeed all the major researchers in this area define creativity in this way (Amabile, 1989; Barron, 1969). Gabora (1999) recently claimed that creative processing required a person to shift cognitively from associative thinking to cause and effect thinking. Eysenck (1995) defines creativity as a latent trait underlying creative behaviors and that creative achievement/performance is a combined function of personality, cognitive and environmental variables. There are perhaps five major positions to take on the relationship between intelligence and creativity as outlined in Sternbergs (1999) Handbook of Creativity. The first is that creativity is a subset of intelligence, the second that intelligence is a subset of creativity, the third being intelligence and creativity are the same thing and the fourth being that intelligence and creativity are completely different and unrelated. The fifth and most popular position is that they are overlapping sets.

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

123

Cattell (1971) believed that real life creativity was determined by parts of ones general intelligence, in particular a persons fluid intelligence (natural ability) and then by personality factors. McCrae (1987) also took a similar stance, and was particularly fascinated by the Openness to Experience factor in educational psychology as it is found to be modestly related to intelligence and quite strongly related to divergent thinking (an ability characteristic of creativity). Research into this area has consistently found some personality traits to be linked with creativity performance. Feists (1998) meta-analysis of the literature found that creative people tended to be more autonomous, introverted, open to new experiences, norm-doubting, self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile and impulsive (p. 299). Certain traits were related negatively to creative scientists such as conscientiousness, conventionality, and closemindedness. With respect to the Big Five factors of personality, there have been some interesting findings and correlates of creativity and creative output: The factor that is most powerfully and consistently positively linked with creativity is Openness to Experience (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004a, 2004b). McCrae & Costa (1997) characterized open personalities as intrinsically artistic. Rawlings, Twomey, Burns, and Morris (1998) found a relationship between creativity, openness to experience and psychoticism. By definition Openness to Experience is the proactive seeking and appreciation of experience for its own sake, and tolerance for an exploration of the unfamiliar (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and is also described as the willingness to try out new ideas, to explore, and to be curious about ones inner ideas and the outside world. Rawlings, Twomey, Burns and Morris (1998) found in their longitudinal study that Openness to Experience measured during college was the best predictor of life course creativity 45 years later. However, there have been some cases where the positive link between creativity and Openness to Experience have not been found (Martindale & Dailey, 1996). The other big five traits are not clearly related to creativity (Richardson, 1995). Gotz and Gotz (1979) discovered a negative relationship between the factor of Neuroticism and scientific creativity but a positive relationship with artistic creativity. Other studies have found no relationship between the two (Eysenck & Furnham, 1993; Martindale & Dailey, 1996; McCrae, 1987). Thus the connection between these two factors is greatly contested with no real consistent pattern found, and it can only be concluded for the purposes of this study that Neuroticism and creativity are not significantly related, though Psychoticism is (Eysenck, 1995). McCrae (1987) found a positive correlation between Conscientiousness and creativity on self-report measures of the construct. He reasoned that Conscientious people tend to invest more effort into pursuing creative activities than less Conscientious people. However, it should be noted that creativity was measured through self-report measures, rather than actual results of a creativity test. The results that indicate a positive relationship with Conscientiousness may be more

124 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

applicable to self-estimates of creativity (SEC) rather than actual creativity itself. King, McKee, Walker, & Broyles (1996) tested McCraes hypothesis again and found the opposite result, that Conscientiousness was in fact negatively significantly correlated with creativity, a pattern that was also alluded to by Feists (1998) meta-analysis of the literature. SEC AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CREATIVITY AND PERSONALITY There appear to be very few studies on self-estimated, as opposed to, otherrelated or psychometrically assessed creativity. Furnham (1999) asked students to complete three estimates of their own creativity along with both a measure of the Big Five (NEO) and a creativity test (Barron Welsh Art Scale). He found personality unrelated to psychometrically assessed intelligence. However, Openness was correlated with all three measures of self-estimated creativity. In this study we shall pursue research on the relationship between self-estimated and psychometric creativity as well as personality and intelligence. This study will address whether, by extending the same reasoning used for the personality, SEI and intelligence relationship, a similar pattern can be found for creative performance (as measured by the Barron-Welsh Art Scale) and SEC (self-estimation of creativity). Although, there has been little investigation into SEC it is possible that personality would also affect an individuals self-estimation of their own creative abilities, just as it does for intellectual abilities. Thus it is quite conceivable that a person with low self-esteem would give themselves both low SEI and a low SEC. The evaluation of ones own creative abilities would also no doubt have some impact on their creative output or at least their desire to get involved with creative activities. Thus, SEC can conceivably act as a mediator or moderator variable between personality and Creativity. Personality variables such as confidence and modesty could also affect how a person evaluates their own creative abilities and hence their SEC. It must be noted that environmental factors such as actual academic or artistic performance and also schooling and family attitudes toward creativity would also affect self-evaluation of creative abilities. SEC, like SEI taps into many of Dwecks (1999) self-theories and factors such as self-esteem, self-motivation, self-worth which show that peoples beliefs about their own abilities are stable and can affect performance, so ends up becoming self-fulfilling. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE Studies show that some of the Big Five personality traits are linked with Academic Performance (AP), in particular Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a, 2003b; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Diseth, 2003; McCrae, 1987). Conscientiousness has been found consistently to be a powerful predictor of AP (Barrick & Mount, 1993;

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

125

De Raad, 1996; Diseth, 2003; Goff & Ackerman, 1992) possibly due to routine practices of studying and careful preparation for exams and assessments. Musgrave-Marquart, Bromley, and Dalley (1997) investigated academic achievement (namely GPA) and personality and also found that Conscientiousness was found to predict academic achievement as predicted. McCrae, Costa, and Piedmont (1993) found that Openness to Experience was also correlated with Goughs (1987) Achievement via Independence, a factor predicting AP at college level. This positive correlation between Openness to Experience and AP was replicated by Diseth (2003). Research into other traits by Diseth (2003) and McCrae (1987) found that Agreeableness was negatively correlated with Academic Performance, a conclusion that is logically plausible when looking at the factors associated with Agreeableness, in particular, modesty. McKenzie (1989) discovered that Extraversion was negatively correlated with success in higher education but the relationship with anxiety was not so clear. He suggested however, that there was indeed a link, and that an interaction between neuroticism and high level of superego development (the Furneaux factor) was positively linked to academic achievement. The negative correlation with extraversion could be explained by the interpersonal and intrapersonal skills of a person, a highly extraverted student would perhaps spend less time studying and more time socializing or extracurricular activities than a less extraverted student thus resulting in a negative correlation with school AP (McCown & Johnson, 1991). THIS STUDY This longitudinal study will explore relationships between self-estimated and psychometrically assessed personality, intelligence, and creativity and how these eventually relate to university academic success. This study will investigate whether the association between creativity and personality is also mediated by SEC in the same way. The hypotheses investigated in this study are: H1: It is predicted that there will be a link between the Big Five Personality Traits and Psychometric Creativity and in specifically that Openness to Experience will yield a significant positive correlation with Creativity (measured by the Barron Welsh). H2: Openness to Experience will be significantly positively correlated with Fluid Intelligence (measured by the Ravens and Baddeley tests). H3: Fluid Intelligence (measured by the Ravens test) will be significantly positively correlated with Creativity.

126 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

H4: There will be a link between personality and SEI, specifically that (a) Agreeableness and SEI will produce a significant negative correlation, while (b) Extraversion and SEI will produce a positive correlation. H5: Agreeableness will be significantly negatively correlated with SEC. H6: There will be a significant positive correlation between general intelligence and Academic Achievement, specifically that the Wonderlic and Baddeley test scores will produce a significant positive correlation with AP (mean exam results). H7: Conscientiousness will produce a significant positive correlation with AP. H8: There will be a significant positive relationship between SEI and Intelligence. There will be significant positive correlations between: (a) the Ravens scores and SEI Ravens, (b) the Wonderlic scores and SEI Wonderlic, (c) the Baddeley test and SEI Baddeley. H9: There will be a significant positive correlation between SEC and Creativity (measured by the Barron-Welsh). H10: Gender will be significantly correlated with (a) SEI a and (b) SEC and males will produce significantly higher SEI Ravens, SEI Wonderlic and SEI Baddeley figures than females. Figure 1 shows the predicted conceptual model created by combining H1-H10. METHOD Sample Participants were sixty-four 3rd year psychology students from University College London ranging in age from 20-55 years (in 2003) with 18 males and 46 females. They were all fluent in English but came from a variety of backgrounds. This study uses psychometric test based personality and intelligence data gathered from the participants in November 2001, data on self-estimated, as well as psychometric creativity, and collected from the same participants in December 2003. Measures This study uses a questionnaire design. The tests used in this study and their corresponding variables measured are: 1. The NEO PI-R Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992)as a measure of Big Five personality traits in a 240-item non-timed inventory: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 127

Figure 1. A predicted model of the interactions of variables in H1-H10.

128 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

Conscientiousness. The inventory requires participants to indicate level of agreement with certain statements about ones typical reactions and behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale (1strongly disagree, 5strongly agree). This test has been shown to be very valid and reliable. 2. The Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1983)as a non-verbal measure of pure fluid intelligence (gf). This 60-item test measuring educative ability, a component of (gf) and is timed (20 mins). Each of the items has a few figures, which are related by specific rules, but one figure is missing. Participants must find the missing one among five similar figures, by figuring out the rules of each set item. The 60 items are divided into five groups (A, B, C, D, E) of 12 items that increases in level of difficulty. The manual reports that studies on a wide range of age groups, cultural groups and clinical as well as normal populations provide abundant evidence for the tests reliability and validity (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1983). 3. The Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) (Wonderlic, 1992)as a measure of general intelligence. It is a 50-item test, can be administered in 12 mins. and scores can range from 0-50. Items include word and number comparisons, disarranged sentences, serial analysis of geometric figures and story problems that require mathematical and logical solutions. The test has been used in various studies investigating intellectual ability and is shown to be very reliable. 4. The Baddeley Reasoning Test (BRT) (Baddeley, 1968)as a measure of general and fluid intelligence (gf) through logical reasoning. This is a 60-item test with scores ranging from 0-60 and is taken in 3 minutes. Each item is a grammatical transformation where participants only need to answer whether the transformation comparison is true or false. This tests reliability and validity are high and has been used in a number of studies for quickly measuring intellectual ability. 5. The Barron-Welsh Art Scale (Barron & Welsh, 1952)as a measure of creativity. This scale consists of 86 different black and white pictures arranged numbered to 8 pictures per page. Participants are instructed to make quick, instinctive, dichotomous judgments about whether they like/dislike each picture. They fill an L for like or a D for dislike for the number corresponding to the picture they are judging on the answer sheet provided. This test requires no language skills (Welsh, 1987). 6. The Self-Estimates of Intelligence (SEI) Questionnaire (Furnham, 2001) this was developed using Gardner (1983, 1993) multiple intelligences and asks participants to rate their own overall intelligence and also rate themselves on each of the multiple intelligences on a standardized scale where 100 is the average rating. 7. The Self-Estimates of Creativity (SEC) Questionnaire (Furnham, 2000) adapted from the SEI for creativity instead of intelligence. All items are the same as the SEI questionnaire, except that in all places, intelligence is replaced with creativity. There are thus seven types of creativity that require rating (i.e.,

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

129

verbal, spatial, etc.) as well as an overall scale. Participants were shown a normal distribution with standard deviations described and asked to give their overall estimated score as well as estimates on the multiple creativity types. For the purpose of this study only the overall measure was used. 8. Mean End-of-Year Exams Resultsthese were used as a measure of Academic Performance (AP). All students took part in 6 two-hour exams at the end of each year2001 and 2002. The exam subjects were from the courses and literature students had been studying that year and answered in the form of essays (3 essays per exam) and these were graded by the UCL exam board and each paper was graded out of 100. The average exam mark used as the measure of academic achievement was the calculated mean between the 2001 final exam mark and 2002 final exam mark. Procedure Participants completed the personality and intelligence tests soon after starting university. Three months later they estimated their own intelligence. A year later they completed the creativity test and estimated their creativity scores. All data were matched to academic exam output over a two year period. Hence this study was a 2-year longitudinal study. Participants received feedback on each of the tests that they completed.
1. Correlations

Pearsons Correlation Coefficients were calculated for all measures in this study and significant figures are in bold (see Table 1). H1: The results above show that Creativity is significantly positively correlated with Openness to Experience (r = .31, p = .01). Also, Conscientiousness was found to be significantly negatively correlated with Creativity with (r = .28, p < .03). H2: As for intelligence and personality, Openness to Experience was again significantly correlated with the Ravens scores which measure pure fluid intelligence (r = .27, p = 0.05), but not with the Wonderlic or the Baddeleys scores which both contain measures of general intelligence. H3: There was no significant correlation between creativity scores and any of the three intelligence tests. H4: Conscientiousness and SEI Baddeley produced a significant positive correlation. However, SEI Ravens and SEI Wonderlic did not achieve any significant correlations with any of the Big Five Personality Factors.

130 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

Table 1. Pearson's Correlation Coefficients between All Relevant Factors and Indications of Significance Ravens Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness SEI Ravens SEI Wonderlic SEI Baddeley SEC AP Creativity Gender .22 .04 .17 SEIRaven Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Gender .15 .14 .15 .04 .15 .10 .22 .14 .13 SEIWonderlic .14 .03 .00 .01 .09 .12 .29* .13 .01 SEIBaddeley .22 .12 .04 .10 .28* .33** .14 SEC .17 .05 .24 .07 .30* .27* .08 .09 .27* .20 .03 .29* .31* .25* Wonderlic .13 .09 .02 .20 .02 .24 .47** .32* Baddeley .09 .03 .06 .10 .01 .06 .20 .32* .27* .21 Creativity .07 .05 .31* .12 .28* AP .04 .05 .15 .04 .40**

Note: AP = Academic Performance, SEI = Self-Estimated Intelligence, SEC = SelfEstimated Creativity. *Significant at the <0.05 level (2-tailed). **Significant at the <0.01 level (2-tailed).

H5: One trait in the Big Five Personality group was indeed found to predict SEC, this was Conscientiousness which yielded a significant positive correlation of r = .30, p < .01. H6: The results show that there was a significant positive correlation between AP and the Baddeley Reasoning Test scores measuring general and fluid intelligence (r = .29, p < .019). However, the Ravens and Wonderlic scores did not significantly correlate with AP.

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

131

H7: Conscientiousness was the only Big Five Personality Trait to be linked with AP. It yielded a very significant positive correlation with AP (r = .40, p < .001). H8: There were highly significant results obtained in this section of the model. The SEI Ravens and the Ravens scores were significantly positively correlated (r .= .29, p < .02). The SEI Wonderlic and the Wonderlic scores were also very significantly positively correlated (r = .47, p < .001). The SEI Baddeley and the Baddeley scores were significantly positively correlated (r = .32, p < .01). There were also some interesting cross-test correlations concerning intelligence and SEI, as the Ravens score was significantly positively correlated with SEI Wonderlic (r = .31, p < .01) and SEI Baddeley (r = .25, p < .05). The Wonderlic scores and SEI Baddeley together yielded a significant positive correlation. H9: The results show that Creativity as measured by the Barron Welsh Scale was significantly and positively correlated with SEC (r = .27, p < .05). H10: Gender and SEC yielded a significant negative correlation in this study with males having higher estimates of creativity than females (r = .27, p < .05). Gender and SEI Baddeley produced a highly significant positive correlation r = .36, p < .01), whereas SEI Ravens and SEI Wonderlic were both not significantly correlated with gender.
2. Multiple Regressions

Multiple regressions were conducted on the factors that produced significant correlations to investigate whether these relationships were predictive. It also allowed further analysis on different models that included whether several independent factors would predict a single dependent variable. Table 2 shows the beta and t figures and significant b values are in bold. H1: The first regression model investigated whether personality as a whole (of Big Five Factors) was found to significantly predict Creativity. Results showed that this model did predict Creativity (F(5, 58) = 2.50, p < .05) and 10.6% of the variance in Creativity scores was accounted for by personality variables. Openness to Experience was the only significant factor in this model (b = .32, p < .01), although Conscientiousness was almost negatively significant to creativity (b = .26, p < .05). H2: In this regression, personality as a whole did not predict Ravens scores (F(5, 58) = 1.39, p < .23), despite the fact that Openness to Experience did yield a significant b coefficient of .28, p < .04. Results showed that Wonderlic and Baddeley scores were not predicted by personality as a whole or by any of its parts.

Table 2. Simultaneous Multiple Regressions for Relevant Factors Identified by the Correlations with b and t Values Ravens b t .38 .58 2.06 1.24 .43 .13 .06 .01 .05 .03 .80 .40 .08 .34 .19 .14 .17 .09 .13 .04 .91 1.07 .64 .93 .28 .10 .20 .32* .08 .25 .67 1.41 2.46 .59 1.95 t t t .06 .09 .28* .17 .06 F(5, 58) = 1.39 .03 .29* .47** .32* F(1, 62) = 5.63* .07 .29* F(1, 62) = 5.82* .07 F(1, 62) = 17.92* .21 4.23 2.61 .265* F(1, 62) = 6.83* .09 2.41 2.16 F(1, 62) = 4.67* .06 .211 1.70 2.27 b b b Wonderlic Baddeley Creativity b .14 .02 .09 .09 .43** AP t 1.01 .11 .73 .69 3.30 F(5, 58) = 2.60* .11

N E O A C

132 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

Reg model Adj. R2

F(5, 58) = 2.50* .11

SEI R SEI W SEI B SEC

Reg model Adj. R2

AP

Reg model Adj. R2

SEI Ravens b t .52 .49 1.22 .27 1.10 .13 .01 .02 .03 .05 .84 .07 .17 .21 .33 .25 .21 .09 .10 .21 1.76 1.46 .69 .74 1.60 .11 .04 .33* .14 .32* t t t .78 .26 2.60 1.10 2.44 F(5, 58) = 2.83* .13 .10 F(1, 62) = 7.38** .09 .77 .12 .97 .33** 2.72 .27* 2.25 F(1, 62) = 5.05* .06 .08 .08 .17 .04 .15 b b b

SEI Wonderlic

SEI Baddeley

SEC

N E O A C

Reg model Adj. R2

Gender

Reg model Adj. R2

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE

*Significant at the <0.05 level (2-tailed). **Significant at the <0.01 level (2-tailed).

/ 133

134 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

H3: This was covered by the correlation in the previous section. H4: There was a separate regression conducted for each SEI test for prediction by the personality traits. The regressions show that there was no predictive relationship between personality as a whole or in factors with each of the SEIs. H5: The regression model shows that SEC is predicted by personality (F(5, 58) = 2.83, p < .024) and in particular the traits of Openness and Conscientiousness, with which there are both positive significant relationships. Personality was found to account for 12.7% of the variance in this model of SEC. H6: The regression model showed that Baddeley scores did significantly predict Academic performance (F(1, 62) = 5.83, p < .05) for 8.6% of the variance. AP was not significantly correlated with or predicted by any other psychometric intelligence test used in this study. H7: After conducting a regression of personality as a predictor of AP, personality, and in particular, Conscientiousness (b = .43, t = 3.30) was found to significantly predict AP (F(5, 58) = 2.60, p < 0.05) and this model accounted for 11.3% of the variance in the model. H8: Through regression analysis, it was deduced that SEI generally significantly predicted intelligence scores on all three tests. For the Ravens, SEI Ravens accounted for 6.8% of the variance in the model (F(1, 62) = 5.63, p < .05); in the Wonderlic test, SEI Wonderlic accounted for a staggering 21.2% of the scores (F(1, 62) = 17.92, p < 0.001) and finally in the Baddeley, SEI Baddeley accounted for 8.5% of the scores in the model (F(1, 62) = 6.83, p = .01). H9: A regression showed that SEC did significantly predict Creativity (F(1, 62) = 4.67, p < .05) however the variance accounted for by SEC was only a rather small: 5.5%. H10: Gender was found to significantly predict SEC (F(1, 62) = 5.05, p < .05), although this was only for 6% of the variance. Therefore males predictably gave significantly higher SEC than females. Upon further analysis through regressions, it was found that gender accounted for 9.2% of the variance in SEI Baddeley and was a very powerful significant predictor of it (F(1, 62) = 7.38, p < .01). However, the Ravens and Wonderlic SEI scores were not significantly predicted by gender. Three regression models were constructed to investigate whether intelligence, as measured by each of the three parametric tests, was predicted by the relevant SEI and personality together. Each model addressed a different intelligence test (see Table 3). Model (b) showed that personality and SEI Wonderlic together

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

135

Table 3. Multiple Regressions of Models (a), (b), and (c), Predicting Intelligence from SEI and Personality Ravens (a) b Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Relevant SEI (R/W/B) Regression model Adj. R2 .04 .15 .23 .18 .02 .25* t .26 .73 1.77 1.35 .15 2.0 Wonderlic (b) b .07 .07 .00 .04 .05 .47** t .46 .48 .00 .28 .39 3.99 Baddeley (c) b .05 .09 .06 .17 .11 .34* t .35 .62 .44 1.22 .81 2.57

F(5, 58) = 1.88 .08

F(5, 58) = 2.91* .15

F(5, 58) = 1.54 .05

(a) Predictors: Personality (N, E, O, A, C) and SEI Ravens; dependent variable: Ravens. (b) Predictors: Personality (N, E, O, A, C) and SEI Wonderlic; dependent variable: Wonderlic. (c) Predictors: Personality (N, E, O, A, C) and SEI Baddeley; dependent variable: Baddeley.

to be a significant predictor of Wonderlic scores and accounting for 15.4% of the variance (F(5, 58) = 2.91, p < .01). However, this was not true of model (a) predicting Ravens scores from SEI Ravens and personality and model (c) using SEI Baddeley and personality to predict Baddeley scores; both of which yielded non-significant results. It should be noted that in all these 3 models, SEI was found to yield significant b figures. To further explore the data three regressions were conducted, one for each intelligence test as they measure different types of intelligence as the criterion factor. This examined the extent to which personality, intelligence and self-estimated intelligence predicted academic outcomes. Table 4 shows that model (d) (Ravens) accounted for 18.8% of AP variance and is significantly predictive of AP (F(7, 56) = 3.09, p < .01) and that in this model, the variable Conscientiousness yielded very significant beta scores. Model (e), regarding the Wonderlic, also significantly predicted AP (F(7, 56) = 3.41, p < .01) and accounted for 21.1% of its variance; it should be noted that Conscientiousness and SEI Wonderlic were both significant factors in this model. The final Baddeley model (f) accounted for 19.4% of variance in AP and also yielded significant results in predicting AP (F(7, 56) = 3.16, p < .01), however it was Conscientiousness and Baddeley scores which were the significant variables here. Conscientiousness was a highly influential positive factor in all three models here. A final regression addressed whether the Big Five personality factors and SEC together would predict Creativity as measured by the Barron Welsh scale (see

136 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

Table 4. Multiple Regressions of Models (d), (e), and (f), Predicting Academic Performance from Personality, SEI, and Intelligence AP (d) b Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Relevant SEI (R/W/B) Relevant intelligence scores (R/W/B) Regression model Adj. R2 t b .19 .02 .10 .10 .42** .28* .11 AP (e) t 1.43 .14 .84 .84 3.41 2.16 .89 b .20 .05 .13 .06 .43** .08 .29* AP (f) t 1.46 .35 1.03 .46 3.33 .59 2.40

.17 1.26 .02 .11 .18 1.43 .07 .51 .39** 3.06 .21 1.75 .19 1.56

F(7, 56) = 3.09** F(7, 56) = 3.41** F(7, 56) = 3.16** .19 .21 .19

(d) Predictors: Personality (N, E, O, A, C), Ravens and SEI Ravens. (e) Predictors: Personality (N, E, O, A, C), Wonderlic and SEI Wonderlic (f) Predictors: Personality (N, E, O, A, C), Baddeley and SEI Baddeley

Table 5). Results show that the model significant predicted Creativity (F(5, 58) = 2.50, p = .05) and that Conscientiousness was a significant negative predictor and SEC was a positive predictor in this model. Eleven and eight-tenths percent of the variance in Creativity was accounted for by the model. DISCUSSION Creativity, Personality, and SEC As predicted by H1, the results of the correlations show that Creativity was significantly positively correlated with Openness to Experience, replicating findings by McCrae (1987) as well as Rawlings et al. (1998). Conscientiousness was also significantly negatively correlated with Creativity as expected. The regression model indicated that Big Five personality as a model predicted psychometric Creativity (Barron Welsh) but in this analysis Openness to Experience was the only significant factor in this model. The creative personality encapsulated in this study of someone who is very open to experience and low in conscientiousness, reflects major elements of Feists (1998) meta-analysis of creativity literature that found creative people tending to be open to new experiences and being negatively related to conscientiousness and conventionality. Previous data suggest that both Openness and Conscientiousness are

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

137

Table 5. Regression Model Predicting Creativity from Personality and SEC Creativity (Barron Welsh) b Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness SEC Regression model Adj. R2 .06 .19 .21 .13 .36** .33* t .43 1.39 1.60 .98 2.74 2.61

F(5, 58) = 2.50* .12

Predictors: Personality (N, E, O, A, C) and SEC Dependent Variable: Creativity (Barron Welsh)

positively correlated with academic performance, the latter more than the former (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004a). The results of the statistical analysis of SEC and personality indicate that highly Conscientious and Open people tended to have higher SECs, which does not support the initial H5. The trait found to be most important in SEC in this study, contrary to predictions, was Conscientiousness, which had a positive predictive power in determining SEC. This result is somewhat surprising, considering the negative correlation it yielded with Creativity. Personality as a whole did predict SEC and accounted for 12.7% of variance in SEC. Openness was another important factor in this model, which was not predictive of SEC in the regression model but still positively correlated with it. The nature of SEC would probably involve a component of personality, perhaps factors such as confidence and modesty and also actual past creative performance, such as A-level grades in Art or Music or less formal creative achievements which give the individual feedback on how creative they are. These past achievements and activities were not investigated in this study and perhaps future studies should attempt to do this in order to fully understand SEC. SEC was found to have high predictive ability over Creativity scores on the Barron Welsh confirming H9, despite only accounting for 5.5% of creativity variance. This result suggests that the participants were in general also good at estimating their own creativity or performance in the scales. This self-evaluative concept could also have an affect on the actual creative performance of an individual, as it does in intelligence testing. With regard to the Barron Welsh, a diffident person who gives themselves a low SEC, may under-perform and receive

138 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

lower creativity ratings because they are not sure about their answers, and do not trust their own opinions, even in such a low demand simplistic task. Two dominant factors emerged in the prediction of psychometric creativity. Conscientiousness was a negative predictor and SEC a positive predictor. The factors identified in the model also reflect factors in Feists (1998) meta-analysis. The self-confident and self-accepting elements may also contribute to higher self-evaluative qualities such as SEC. Intelligence, Personality, and SEI Openness to Experience was again significantly correlated with the Ravens scores (pure fluid intelligence) as predicted in H1, replicating results by Zeidner and Matthew (2000) and Furnham and Thomas (2004). However, when the model of personality was put into a regression, it was significant, despite a significant Openness coefficient. There was, however, no link between either the Wonderlic (general intelligence) or the Baddeley (general and fluid intelligence) scores to any personality traits. The result for the Baddeley did not support part of this hypothesis there was a predicted relationship with Openness to Experience. Furnham et al. (2005) using a very similar sample, the same two psychometric intelligence tests (Wonderlic and Baddeley) and the same personality test (NEO PI-R) was able to find that Baddeley scores and Conscientiousness were negatively linked although causality was not found. With regard to the lack of personality and Wonderlic links in this study, it replicates Furnham et al. (2004) findings but are in conflict with other research into general intelligence and personality that reported modest but significant relationships between the two. It could be noted that even though none of the figures were significant, Extraversion and Neuroticism both produced negative correlations with each of the intelligence scores, suggesting a theme may have emerged if a larger sample had been used. Conscientiousness and SEI Baddeley produced a surprising significant positive correlation suggesting highly Conscientious people tended to rate their own intelligence higher. This positive distortion of ones own abilities may be due to the fact that highly conscientious people may expect higher intelligence scores because they felt they have the right focus to do well in these types of tests. SEI Ravens and SEI Wonderlic did not achieve any significant correlations with any of the Big Five Personality Factors which was also incompatible with the hypothesis and much of previous research indicating that more Agreeable and Extraverted individuals tend to have lower SEIs due to the modesty factor (Furnham & Thomas, 2004). It is worth noting that both SEI and SEC produced positive relationships with Conscientiousness, which suggests that this trait taps positively into how a person evaluates themselves, perhaps being conscientious and engaging in these behaviors would give a person more confidence about their performance.

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

139

H8 was confirmed by the results regarding SEI and actual intelligence scores. In each of the tests, the actual score and the SEI was highly positively linked and regressions showed that SEI in each case was predictive of actual scores and intellectual abilities. This implies that the participants in this study had great insight into their own abilities and were generally very good at estimating their performance. This was especially true in the Wonderlic test where SEI Wonderlic accounted for 21.2% of the scores. The pattern found here implies that self-evaluation of ones own intellectual abilities greatly affects the way a person actually performs on such a test and that issues such as confidence can enhance or impair performance, an idea which is prominent in the research literature (Furnham et al., 2001). The three models, each predicting a particular intelligence test score using the corresponding SEI and personality together, gave alternating conclusions. The Wonderlic scores were well predicted by SEI Wonderlic and personality in a model that accounted for 15.4% of score variance. However, the same relationship was not confirmed with regard to the Ravens and Baddeley scores and their models. In all of these models, SEI was found to yield significant b figures which shows that SEI by itself would predict scores but it is the personality factors that are less well linked with psychometric intelligence scores. It is still plausible that this relationship exists within the personality-intelligence structure due to some of the less than desirable methodological concerns of the study. Gender Gender was found not only to be linked with SEC as predicted in H10, but also found to predict a small portion of it. The direction of this relationship was however, the opposite of what was predicted with males giving significantly higher SEC than females. It was initially thought to be the other way around due to the social stereotypes imposed upon the sexes, that females were more creative and males are more intelligent (at least logical). However, this result does indicate otherwise and can be logically explained by research showing males tendency to overestimate their own abilities more so than females who tend to underestimate their own abilities and show more modesty which is found to be prominent in academic settings. Gender was also found to be a very powerful predictor of SEI Baddeley despite no significant difference in actual Baddeley scores and replicates findings of SEI across cultures and ages (Furnham, 2000). However, the Ravens and Wonderlic SEI scores were not significantly predicted by gender. It would seem that gender had the same effect on SEI as SEC, which indicates that males tend to over-estimate more than females about their own intelligence and creativity. This could be indicative of prominent themes regarding gender and ability in the culture the sample is from.

140 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

Academic Performance The positive relationship found between AP and the Baddeley Reasoning Test scores, as predicted by H6, are an indication that these two constructs are clsely linked and further analysis using a regression showed that Baddeley scores did significantly predict Academic Performance. This is also a reflection on the nature of the tasks and demands in the academic subject being evaluated. The results would indicate that performing well at University would require high levels of fluid and general intelligence as measured in the Baddeley; but this result may be different if the sample had been taken from a different course, for example art history, design, physics or computing. Thus the nature of the academic subject or the job in which a person is being assessed could very well change the pattern of how psychometric intelligence or indeed creativity relates to the performance. This reasoning could explain why AP was not significantly correlated with or predicted by any other psychometric intelligence test used in this study, as the requirements of the course could mostly tap into the intelligence measured by Baddeley and not by the Ravens or Wonderlic. As hypothesized in H7, the results showed that Conscientiousness within a Personality model was clearly the strongest predictor of Academic Performance, and that the Personality variables accounted for a rather high 11.3% of the variance in AP. This finding is in conjunction with other findings on Academic Performance (Diseth, 2003; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; McCrae, 1987) and reiterates the importance of conscientious behaviors such as focused and organized revised, planning and doing homework in developing high academic results. This relationship could be linked to crystallized intelligence as conscientious behaviors would perhaps lead to an increase in crystallized intelligence which is so dependent upon cultural and educational factors such as learning knowledge of things within a social-environmental contextmuch like academic education. Another three models were constructed to further extend research addressed the ability of a combination of personality, SEI and actual psychometric intelligence to predict AP and as predicted, every one of these models were found to significantly predict AP. Ravens, SEI Ravens and Personality in combination accounted for 18.8% of AP variance and is significantly predictive of AP, in this model, Conscientiousness was again the dominant factor. The Wonderlic scores, in conjunction with SEI Wonderlic and Personality, also significantly predicted AP and accounted for 21.1% of its variance where Conscientiousness and SEI Wonderlic were both highly dominant factors. The Baddeley scores, teamed with SEI Baddeley and Personality significantly predicted AP, accounting for 19.4% of variance. However, it was Conscientiousness and Baddeley scores which were the significant variables here. Conscientiousness was a highly influential positive factor in all three models here, which is another indication of

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 141

Figure 2. Results of study in initially hypothesized model with directional indications (H1-H11). Note: C = Conscientiousness, O = Openness to Experience, (+) = positive relationship, () = negative relationship, (g) = general intelligence, (gf) = fluid intelligence.

142 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

its importance as a trait in Academic Performance research (Musgrave-Marquart, Bromley & Dalley, 1997). Figure 2 shows the findings of the study in the context of the initially proposed model. What are the practical implications of this study? First, as has been consistently found in the literature on self-assessed intelligence (Furnham, 2001), males tend to give higher self-estimated creativity scores than females, despite little evidence that that is a fact. Second, people are reasonably able to predict their intelligence and creativity scores. Third, Conscientiousness is positively associated with academic performance but negatively correlated with creativity. Moutafi, Furnham, and Palliel (2004) have a compensatory theory of Conscientiousness at university which suggests that comparatively less bright people have to become more conscientious to succeed in a competitive environment. Perhaps it is the subfactor of conscientious-like diligence and dutifulness that account for the negative correlations with creativity. That is the desire for order and the belief that success comes through deliberate application of effort means that Conscientiousness tends to be negatively correlated with creativity. Indeed there is an extensive literature to suggest that highly creative individuals are often poorly self-disciplined and indeed famous for the lack of Conscientiousness (Eysenck, 1995). This may mean that often highly creative individuals do not do particularly well in standard academic institutions. This has implications for vocational guidance and assessment. One issue is where people derive some idea of how creative they are. That is, what influences their self-estimated creativity. This creative-test feedback may be important, yet it is acknowledged that there are not many robustly validated psychometric tests of creativity. Equally important perhaps are the consequences of ones self-estimator of creativity. There are inevitably those who over and those who underestimate their ability. An interesting question is to what extent these self-estimates predict involvement in creative activities as well as the quality of the creative product. REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin , 121, 219-245. Amabile, R. (1989). Growing up creatively. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. Baddeley, A. (1968). A 3 minute reasoning test based on grammatical transformation. Psychonomic Science, 10, 341-342. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118. Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

143

Barron, F., & Welsh, G. S. (1952). Artistic perception as a possible factor in personality style: Its measurement by a figure preference test. Journal of Psychology, 33, 199-203. Brand, C. (1994). Open to experienceClosed to intelligence: Why the Big Five are really the Comprehensive Six. European Journal of Personality, 8, 299-310. Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth and action . New York: Springer. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality traits and academic examination performance. European Journal of Psychology, 17, 237-250. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal samples. Journals of Research in Personality, 37, 319-338. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004a). A possible model to understand the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249-264. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004b). Art judgment: A measure related to both personality and intelligence? Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 24, 2004-2005. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Moutafi, J. (2004). The relationship between estimated and psychometric personality and intelligence scores. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 505-513. Costa, T. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. De Raad, B. (1996). Personality traits in learning and education. European Journal of Personality, 10, 185-200. Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 16, 149-170. Diseth, A. (20030. Approaches to learning, cognitive style and academic achievement. Educational Research, 45, 381-394. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum. Eysenck, H. J., & Furnham, A. (1993). Personality and the Barron Welsh Art Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 837-838. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review , 2, 290-309. Furnham, A. (1999). Personality and creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 407-408. Furnham, A. (2000). Parents estimates of their own and their childrens multiple intelligences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 18, 583-594. 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, 1381-1405. Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004a). Estimating ones own personality and intelligence scores. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 149-160.

144 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC

Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004b). Personality, intelligence and art. Personality and Individual Differences , 36, 705-715. Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Moutafi, J. (2005). Personality and intelligence: Gender, the big five, self-estimated and psychometric intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 13, 11-14. Furnham, A., & Thomas, A. (2004). Parents gender and personality and estimates of their own and their childrens intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 887-903. Gabora, L. (1999). Amplifying phenomenal information: Toward a fundamental theory of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 3-92. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessing typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology , 84, 537-552. Gotz, K. O., & Gotz, K. (1979). Personality characteristics of successful artists. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 919-924. Gough, H. G. (1987). California psychological inventory administrators guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 44-77. King, L. A., McKee-Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality , 30, 189-203. Lynn, R., Hampson, S., & Magee, M. (1984). Home background, intelligence, personality and education as predictors of unemployment in young people. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 549-557. Martindale, C., & Dailey, A. (1996). Creativity, primary process cognition, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences , 20, 409-414. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 52, 1258-1265. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In S. R. Briggs, R. Hogan, & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. New York: Academic Press. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Piedmont, R. L. (1993). Folk concepts, natural language and psychological constructs: The California Psychological Inventory and the fivefactor model. Journal of Personality, 61, 1-26. McCown, W., & Johnson, J. (1991). Personality and chronic procrastination by university students during an academic examination period. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 413-415. McKenzie, J. (1989). Neuroticism and academic achievement: The Furneaux factor. Personality and Individual Differences , 10, 509-515. McKinnon, D. W. (1970). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychology, 17, 484-495.

SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE /

145

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump., J. (2003). Demographic and personality preditors of intelligence: A study using the NEO-Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type indicator. European Journal of Personality, 176, 79-94. Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Palliel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences , 37, 1013-1022. Musgrave-Marquart, D., Bromley, S. P., & Dalley, M. B. (1997). Personality, academic attribution, and substance use as predictors of academic achievement in college students. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality , 12, 501-511. Paulus, 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, 525-554. Rawlings, D., Twomey, F., Burns, E., & Morris, S. (1998). Personality, creativity, and aesthetic preference: Comparing psychoticism, sensation seeking, schizotypy, and openness to experience. Empirical Studies of the Arts , 16, 153-178. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1983). Manual for Ravens Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales (Section 3)Standard Progressive Matrices (1983 edition). London: Lewis. Richardson, J. T. E. (1995). Using questionnaires to evaluate student learning. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning through assessment and evaluation. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for Staff Development. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Weisberg, R. W. (1986). The myth of creativity. Newsday Ideas, 1, 1-11. Welsh, G. S. (1987). Manual for the Barron-Welsh Art Scale. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (1994). Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ltd. Wonderlic, E. (1992). The Wonderlic Personnel Test. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Inc. Zeidner, M. (1995). Coping with examination stress: Resources, strategies, outcomes. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 8, 279-298. Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Direct reprint requests to: Prof. A. Furnham Department of Psychology University College London 26 Bedford Way London WC1H OAP e-mail: a.furnham@ucl.ac.uk

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.