Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 79 90

www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Personality, intelligence and general knowledge

Adrian Furnham a,T, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic b
a

Deparment of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAP, UK
b
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College London, UK
Received 22 October 2004; received in revised form 9 July 2005; accepted 11 July 2005

Abstract
Three studies, all on student populations, looked at the relationship between a recently psychometrised measure
of General Knowledge [Irwing, P., Cammock, T., & Lynn, R. (2001). Some evidence for the existence of a general
factor of semantic memory and its components. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 857871], both long
and short versions of the Big Five Personality Inventory, one measure of general [Wonderlic, E. (1992). Wonderlic
personnel test. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic] and a short measure of fluid intelligence [Baddeley, A. (1968). A 3 min
reasoning test based on grammatical transformation. Psychonomic Science, 10, 341342]. Results were fairly
consistent between studies indicating that General Knowledge was moderately correlated with general intelligence
(r between .30 and .62). Personality correlates of General Knowledge were less consistent though, in two studies
Conscientiousness and Openness was positively and significantly correlated with the total score. The advantages
and disadvantages of using General Knowledge as a proxy intelligence test are considered.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Personality; Openness; Conscientiousness; Fluid; Crystalised; Intelligence; General Knowledge

1. Introduction
This paper sets out to examine personality and intelligence correlates and predictors of General
Knowledge. It aimed to examine whether specific personality factors namely Openness-to-experience,
Neuroticism and Conscientiousness showed incremental, predictive validity over intelligence tests, in
predicting General Knowledge.
T Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7679 5395; fax: +44 20 7436 4276.
E-mail address: a.furnham@ucl.ac.uk (A. Furnham).
1041-6080/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.002

80

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

This research inevitably touches upon a number of crucial issues in differential psychology: namely
the relationship between personality (assessed by tests of preference) and intelligence (assessed by tests
of power); as well as the role of General Knowledge in the measurement of intelligence. General
Knowledge has continued to be used in many areas of research particularly cognitive psychology
(Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; East & Forgas, 2002; Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995; Hambrick
& Engle, 2002; Hicks & Cockman, 2003; Mariani, Sacco, & Spinnler, 2002) and differential psychology
(Beier & Ackerman, 2001, 2003; Irwing, Cammock, & Lynn, 2001; Lynn & Irwing, 2002; Rolfhus &
Ackerman, 1999; Runco & Nemiro, 2003).
The role of General Knowledge as a component of intelligence, and a good measure of it, remains in
dispute. Thus while the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test (Wechsler, 1981) has a subscale called
Information which is clearly a General Knowledge test, the Stanford Binet (Terman & Merrill, 1960)
does not. This probably reflects the original attempts by Binet (1903) of developing a measure of fluid
ability or learning potential to account for individual differences in young children, rather than learned or
acquired knowledge in adult population. The relationship between General Knowledge and intelligence
has however been considered in applied and educational settings notably Vernons (1950, 1969) work on
educational and scholastic abilities.
Further attempts to describe the structure of intelligence or hierarchies of human mental ability
sometimes refer to General Knowledge but usually under the concept of crystallized intelligence
(Carroll, 1993; Cattell, 1967). Crystallized intelligence is understood to be a broad mental ability that
results from the investment of fluid ability (reasoning) in particular learning experiences: bAs children
grow older and undergo different experiences at school and in the family, so, clearly, fluid ability and
crystallized ability become less highly correlated. The bright and well-adjusted child who attends a good
school and received encouragement at home will invest most of her fluid ability in the crystallized skills
of her culture. On the other hand, the equally bright child from a home where education is not valued and
who attends a school of indifferent quality will not thus invest his fluid ability. His school performance
may be far worse than a moderate child who invests all his ability at schoolQ (Kline, 1991, p. 34).
General Knowledge then may be seen as one aspect of the larger Gc construct.
Researchers in the area of the structure of intelligence still measure General Knowledge. Thus
Kyllonen and Christal (1990) used two measures of General Knowledge (word knowledge and general
science) and showed how it was related logically and statistically to reasoning and working memory.
Rolfhus and Ackerman (1996) who were interested in the bcrossroadsQ of ability, interest and
personality found positive correlations between Knowledge and Openness, and negative correlations
between Extraversion and Knowledge. These correlations were stronger for measures of Gc compared to
GF. The results provide for Ackermans PPIK theory that bintelligence-as-knowledge is accumulated by
the application of intelligence-as-process to learning experiencesQ (Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999). In their
study, they devised 20 domain specific knowledge tests in areas such as astronomy, biology, economics,
western civilisation and world knowledge which factored into four clear factors labelled humanities,
science, civics and mechanical. Subsequent research has confirmed the above finding as well as shown
for instance fluid intelligence is a less effective predictor of current-events knowledge than crystallised
intelligence (Beier & Ackerman, 2001). Looking at more specific knowledge domains like health
knowledge Beier and Ackerman (2003) replicated their basic findings that cognitive ability accounted
for more of the variance than non-cognitive traits.
Whilst many researchers have seen personality and intelligence as distinct and unrelated concepts
(Ackerman, 1996; Eysenck, 1971; Hofstee, 2001; Holland et al., 1995; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000),

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

81

there is considerable interest in the overlap between these two major pillars of differential psychology
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004; Eysenck, 1994; Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1985; Stankov, 1999, 2000).
There are reasons to suppose that two personality traits in particular, Openness-to-Experience and
Conscienciousness, are significantly related to intelligence (McCrae, 1993, 1994; McCrae & Costa,
1985). Researchers have found significant positive correlations between Openness and psychometric
intelligence (notably crystallized intelligence), which led some to suggest that open individuals may be
more likely to invest in intellectual activities that would eventually lead to increased crystallized ability
(Ackerman & Goff, 1994; Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004; Goff
& Ackerman, 1972). One the other hand, recent research has interpreted the negative and significant
correlation between Conscientiousness and psychometric intelligence in terms of bcompensationQ, that is
the idea that lower fluid ability may lead individuals to bcompensateQ and become more Conscientious,
whilst higher fluid intelligence would minimise these efforts and result in more able individuals being
less conscientiousnotably in competitive setting (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004; Moutafi,
Furnham, & Crump, 2003; Moutafi, Furnham, & Paltiel, 2004). It should have been pointed out that not
all studies report a negative significant correlation between Conscientiousness and intelligence.
However, much research is needed to further explore the relationship between Conscientiousness and
general intellectual ability. Furthermore, to the extent that both Openness and Conscientiousness may
lead individuals to invest in acquisitions of new skills and knowledge it would be important to test the
relationship between these two personality traits and a test of General Knowledge.
Conscientiousness is associated with persistence, self-discipline and achievement striving (Busato,
Prins, Elshout, & Hamakjer, 2000), all of which may be logically expected to increase an individuals
likelihood of investing in knowledge acquisitionregardless of her/his fluid intelligence. Openness
encompasses aspects of intellectual curiosity, creativity, imagination and aesthetic sensibility, all of
which may lead one to expect that Open individuals would have a greater predisposition to engage in
intellectually stimulating activities that lead to higher knowledge acquisition.
This paper reports on three studies all using student populations to test the following hypotheses.
The first major hypothesis tested in these studies is that general measures of general intelligence
(mixed fluid and intelligence) are strongly positively correlated with General Knowledge (H1) but that
a measure of fluid intelligence show weaker, but positive and significant correlations with General
Knowledge (H2). With regard to the relationship between individual differences and General
Knowledge, it is expected that (H3) Openness will be positively and significantly correlated with
General Knowledge, and that (H4) Conscientiousness will be also significantly and positively
correlated with General Knowledge.
All studies used four of the same measures: a General Knowledge test (Irwing et al., 2001); a measure
(both long and short version) of the Big Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992); two measures of
fluid intelligence (Baddeley, 1968; Raven, 1965); and a measure of crystallized intelligence (Wonderlic,
1992). The full sets of tests used are set out below:
Questionnaires
1. General knowledge
General Knowledge Test (Irwing et al., 2001). This is a 72 item questionnaire that measures knowledge
of six areas: literature, general science, medicine, games, fashion and finance (candidates are given 20
min to complete the test). It has been used as a proxy measure for intelligence and the overall scores

82

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

around r = .4 to r = .6 with measures of general intelligence. It was chosen not only for its excellent
psychometric properties but that it is up-to-date and designed specifically to be used on British
undergraduate students.
2. Personality
A) The revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1985). This is a 240item untimed questionnaire, measuring 30 primary and five super-traits. The five super-traits are
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness-to-Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
Each item of the test is a statement, to which one must respond on a five-point Likert scale,
the answers ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A considerable amount of
research has been done on the NEO PI-R demonstrating high levels of both reliability and
validity.
B) The NEO Personality InventoryRevised (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). This 60 item, nontimed questionnaire, measures the bBig FiveQ personality factors, i.e. Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Items involve questions about
typical behaviours or reactions which are answered on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from
bstrongly disagreeQ to bstrongly agreeQ. The manual shows impressive indices of reliability and
validity.
3. Intelligence
A) The Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1992). This 50-item test can be administered in 12 min
and measures general intelligence. Scores can range from 0 to 50. Items include word and
number comparisons, disarranged sentences, serial analysis of geometric figures and story
problems that require mathematical and logical solutions. It has a wide range of items some
clearly measuring Gc, others Gf. The test has impressive norms and correlates very highly
(r = .92) with the WAIS-R.
B) The Baddeley Reasoning Test (Baddeley, 1968). This 60-item test can be administered in 3 min
and measures Gf through logical reasoning. Scores can range from 0 to 60. Each item is presented
in the form of a grammatical transformation that has to be answered with btrue/falseQ, e.g. bA
precedes BABQ (true) or bA does not follow BBAQ (false). The test has been employed
previously in several studies (e.g. Furnham, Gunter, & Peterson, 1994) to obtain a quick and
reliable indicator of peoples intellectual ability.
C) Ravens Progressive (Advanced) Matrices (Raven, 1965). This is a very well known and
extensively used measure of fluid intelligence. Participants get a booklet of related patterns (6 per
page) and have to select the next one in the series. The test is timed and the matrices increase in
difficulty. It has excellent psychometric properties (Kline, 1994).

2. Study 1
Method
Participants. These were 118 non-psychology students doing a subsidiary course. There were 69 males
and 49 females. Their mean age was 21.3 years. They were mainly students of economics, computing
and geography though many disciplines were represented. They were mostly, but not exclusively, first
year students.

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

83

Table 1
Correlations between General Knowledge, intelligence and big five personality traits

General Knowledge
Baddeley
Wonderlic
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

GK

36.60

32.14

30.21

97.39

104.20

101.74

103.00

108.10

S.D.

9.70

11.07

9.70

10.65

9.83

11.13

9.69

12.91

(GK)
(B)
(W)
(N)
(E)
(O)
(A)
(C)

.29TT
.44TT
.14
.06
.36TT
.05
.40TT

.00
.15
.08
.10
.14

.21
.35***
.32TT
.25

.28TT
.55TT
.18

.49TT
.38TT

.31

.40TT
.22T
.07
.06
.09
.05

N: between 118 and 94.

T p b .05.
TT p b .01.
TTT p b .001.

Questionnaires. They completed four tests (see above) under test conditions: General Knowledge Test,
NEO-FFI, Wonderlic Personnel Test, Baddeley Reasoning Test.
Procedure. Participants were tested in a very large auditorium for the three ability tests. Six examiners
ensured all went according to plan. The personality test was completed between lectures. All participants
were fully debriefed and received their test scores with full explanation.
Results
Table 1 shows the correlational results. The results confirm all four hypotheses H1H4. Table 2 shows
the regressional results. Regressing first the two intelligence tests shows the Wonderlic Test is the best
Table 2
Regressional analysis of intelligence (A) and personality (B) onto General Knowledge
Beta

A
Baddeley
Wonderlic
F(2,112) = 8.55**, Adj. R 2 .11

.11
.30

1.15
3.17*

B
Baddeley
Wonderlic
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
F(7,112) = 6.69**, Adj. R 2 .25

.10
.28
.05
.15
.26
.12
.27

1.13
3.10**
.54
1.52
2.59**
1.13
3.10**

84

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

predictor and accounts for just over a tenth of the variance. When the intelligence tests and five
personality traits are regressed onto the General Knowledge Test score there were three variables that in
total accounted for a quarter of the variance. Results showed that bright, open, conscientious people had
high General Knowledge scores.

3. Study 2
Methods
Participants. These were 92 psychology first year students. There were 67 females and 25 males. Their
mean age was 19.19 years. They completed all the tests in the first month of being at University.
Questionnaire. They completed the General Knowledge Test, NEO-FFI, Wonderlic Personnel Test,
Baddeley Reasoning Test and the Ravens Progressive Matrices.
Procedure. Participants were tested under the same conditions as in Study 1.
Results
As in study 1 (see Table 1) the General Knowledge Test score was correlated with the Baddeley
Reasoning Test (r = .35, p b 001) but more strongly with the Wonderlic Personnel Test (r = .62, p b 001).
However all the correlations between the big five traits and General Knowledge were not significant.
Thus H1 and H2 but not H3 and H4 were confirmed. Table 3 shows correlational results.
Table 4 shows the results of the regression. As in the first study (see Table 2) the Wonderlic Test score
was the only significant predictor of General Knowledge when the three intelligence tests were regressed
onto it. In this study it accounted for a third of the variance compared to a tenth in the first study. When
Table 3
Correlations between General Knowledge, intelligence and big five personality traits
GK

General Knowledge
Baddeley
Wonderlic
Raven
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

34.18

31.50

27.59

194.61

90.31

89.23

97.28

96.60

97.53

S.D.

10.64

12.06

5.85

25.51

13.73

12.31

12.60

14.30

13.40

.65***
.39***
.19
.02
.22
.08
.01

.39***
.06
.04
.10
.18
.05

.11
.00
.63
.14
.06

.28*
.56***
.64***
.43***

.62***
.38***
.42***

.64***
.44***

.60***

(GK)
(B)
(W)
(R)
(N)
(E)
(O)
(A)
(C)

* p b .05.
** p b .01.
*** p b .001.
N: between 118 and 94.

.35**
.62***
.16
.01
.01
.25
.12
.10

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

85

Table 4
Regressional analysis of intelligence (A) and personality (B) onto General Knowledge
Beta

A
Baddeley
Wonderlic
Raven
F(3,101) = 18.60***, Adj. R 2 .34

.03
.63
.07

0.25
6.23***
0.79

B
Baddeley
Wonderlic
Raven
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
F(8,101) = 8.09**, Adj. R 2 .35

.50
.63
.06
.11
.00
.10
.28
.04

0.57
6.54***
0.53
1.01
0.08
0.84
2.32***
0.40

the five traits plus the intelligence scores were regressed onto the totalled General Knowledge score there
were only two significant predictors. These indicated that both disagreeable participants and with a high
Wonderlic scale score tended to have higher levels of General Knowledge.

4. Study 3
Participants
These were 108 non-psychology students (mainly from economics, computing and physics). There
were 60 males and 48 females. Their mean age was 19.83 years. Half were from American
universities studying in London for two terms. There were no significant differences between the
British and the American students on any of the measured tests (general knowledge, intelligence,
personality).
Questionnaire
They completed four tests (see above): General Knowledge, NEO-PIR, Wonderlic Personality Test
and the Baddeley Reasoning Test.
Procedure
As in Study 1.
Results
Table 5 shows the correlational results which are similar to Table 1 and confirm all four hypotheses.
Similarly Table 6 is similar to Table 2, both in the amount of variance accounted for (.25) and the fact

86

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

Table 5
Correlations between General Knowledge, intelligence and big five personality traits

General Knowledge
Baddeley
Wonderlic
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

GK

31.34

27.87

28.87

23.26

28.63

29.81

29.53

29.54

S.D.

9.38

12.35

5.59

8.27

6.81

5.96

6.43

7.54

.57T
.01
.02
.23T
.10
.21T

.00
.09
.14
.03
.10

.13
.03
.15

.04
.09

.21T

(GK)
(B)
(W)
(N)
(E)
(O)
(A)
(C)

.27T
.38TT
.11
.09
.50TT
.19
.23T

.34TT
.13
.11
.26T

N: between 73 and 98.

T p b .05.
TT p b .01.

that the Wonderlic test score and openness were significant predictors. However in this study
Conscientiousness was not a significant predictor.

5. Combined analysis
Analysing the data above from three different, albeit demographically similar, samples allows the
testing of replication. However, it is also desirable to have bigger samples in order to do advanced
structural equation modelling. Whilst in all three studies participants completed the General Knowledge
Test, the Wonderlic and the Baddeley, two different versions of the Big 5 (NEO PI-R; NEO FFI) were
used. The data from Study 1 and Study 2 was therefore combined (N = 210) dropping the Ravens
Table 6
Regressional analysis of intelligence (A) and personality (B) onto General Knowledge
Beta

A
Baddeley
Wonderlic
F(2,105) = 5.41**, Adj. R 2 .09

.08
.25

0.74
2.27*

B
Baddeley
Wonderlic
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
F(7,107) = 5.54***, Adj. R 2 .23

.02
.25
.02
.03
.40
.13
.16

0.23
2.49**
0.24
0.32
4.51***
1.47
1.79

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

87

Progressive matrices. The analyses were repeated but results were, expectedly, much the same with the
same pattern of significant results. The Wonderlic intelligence test was the best predictor, followed by
Openness. In all they accounted for .36 of the variance. The N was not thought of as sufficiently large to
do structural equation modelling.

6. Discussion
This paper reported on three studies with similar results. Further, results lend support to the findings
of Ackerman and colleagues who have tended to use both multiple measures of knowledge (up to 20)
and multiple measures of intelligence (Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999). It provides more evidence of PPIK
theory. In all three studies the 3-min fluid intelligence test correlated positively and significantly with the
General Knowledge score (r = .27, r = .35, r = .29). This confirms the second hypothesis and suggests that
around 10% of the variance in General Knowledge (often considered itself a measure of crystallized
intelligence) can be accounted for by a measure of fluid intelligence.
However as predicted it was the measure of general intelligence (mixed; fluid and crystallised) which
was more strongly correlated with General Knowledge. This was much clearer in the multiple
regressions. In all three studies it was the Wonderlic test scores and neither the Baddeley Reasoning Test
(studies 1, 2, and 3), nor the Ravens (Study 2), which predicted the General Knowledge test.
The correlations between general intelligence and General Knowledge ranged from r = .38 (Study 3,
N = 81) to r = .62 (Study 2, N = 109). The regressions indicated that as much as a third of the variance in
General Knowledge scores could be accounted for by general intelligence.
The results testing H3 and H4 are less consistent. In two of the three studies (Study 1; r = 36; Study 3;
r = 50) Openness was significantly correlated with General Knowledge. Further in Studies 1 and 3 the
regression analysis showed that when two intelligence and five trait measure scores were entered into the
regression, Openness remained a significant predictor of General Knowledge as predicted. Indeed in the
third study the beta for Openness was higher than that for the Wonderlic test of crystallized intelligence.
In the third study a quarter of the variance in General Knowledge was accounted for by just two scores.
Conscientiousness was correlated with General Knowledge in Study 1 (r = .40) and Study 3 (r = .23)
but was only in the first study that it was significant in the regression. This therefore provides mixed
evidence for hypothesis four.
The results of Studies 1 and 3 are considerably more consistent than for that of Study 2. Whilst the
General Knowledge and intelligence test scores were fairly consistent across the three studies (see Tables
1, 3, and 5) as one may expect, given the essentially similar nature of the three student groups, there was
more variability in the personality test scores. These are only really comparable in Study 1 and 2 where
the long version of the NEO-PIR measure was used. In the third study the short measure was used. In
Study 1 Openness and Conscientiousness were significant predictors the participants were slightly more
Open but nearly a standard deviation more Conscientiousness than in Study 2. Slight differences in
results between the studies indicate no doubt variances in participants, reactions to the study and general
error variance.
This study however provides more evidence that together personality and intelligence measures
predict other breal worldQ measures (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004; Gottfredson, 2002;
Gottfredson & Deary, 2004). It also suggests that well psychometrized, up-to-date, and participantrelevant measures of General Knowledge may provide reasonably proxy measures of crystallized

88

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

intelligence. Popular British television programmes like the long-running University Challenge have
assumed by many to test the intelligence of teams by asking time competitive General Knowledge
questions.
Assuming that these results could be replicated on a wider and more heterogeneous participant
sample, using both more robust multiple measures of intelligence preferably grouped into fluid and
crystallised intelligence, and perhaps more general and domain specific measures of General
Knowledge, one question of interest is whether tests of knowledge could act as a proxy intelligence
test. Whilst Ackermans work based on his intelligence-as-knowledge theory would certainly support
this view there are inevitably many caveats to this proposal. As both this study and Ackermans and
Lynns work shows General Knowledge is systematically linked to both demographic (specifically
gender and age) and personality variables. Thus older, conscientious, open, male, introverts may have a
significant advantage and score higher irrespective of their level of fluid intelligence. However, it may be
argued that demographic and personality variables interact with fluid intelligence over time (investment
theory, intelligence-as-process) to lead to higher, specifically, crystallised intelligence.
There were limitations to this study. It would have been more desirable to have more carefully
constructed and multiple measures of intelligence though the 3-min Baddeley Reasoning Test did an
impressive job in accounting for the variance that it did. More importantly it would have been better to
have tests that clearly measured Gf and Gc. Thus, as a good example Beier and Ackerman (2001) used
six tests of Gf (i.e. Number series, spatial analogy) and five of Gc (Vocabulary, comprehensions, etc.).
Second, it would have been desirable to have a larger more heterogeneous sample both to extend the
generalisability and also to be more clear about the reasons for replication. Third, a larger data bank
would have allowed for structural equation modelling of the data which could investigate the causal links
between demography, personality, intelligence and knowledge. Fourth as various researchers have
shown various self-perception issues (self-concept, self-estimates of ability, self-assessed intelligence)
could be profitably added to the independent variables to account for unique and incremental validity
(Beier & Ackerman, 2001; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004). Finally, perhaps most important of
all it is important to demonstrate the predictive validity of General Knowledge itself. The work of
Ackerman and Lynn has been primarily about demonstrating the link between individual difference
variables (primarily intelligence) and General Knowledge (Ackerman, 1996; Lynn & Irwing, 2002).
However, that is only of bacademic interestQ unless it can be clearly demonstrated that knowledge is a
consistent statistically significant predictor of breal worldQ outcome variables like educational attainment
or job performance.
References
Ackerman, P. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development. Intelligence, 22, 227 257.
Ackerman, P., & Rolfhus, E. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence. Psychology and Aging, 14, 314 330.
Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences and gender difference
in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 797 825.
Ackerman, P. L., & Goff, M. (1994). Typical intellectual engagement and personality: Reply to Rocklin. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 150 153.
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219 245.
Baddeley, A. (1968). A 3 min reasoning test based on grammatical transformation. Psychonomic Science, 10, 341 342.

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

89

Beier, M., & Ackerman, P. (2001). Current-events knowledge in adults: An investigation of age, intelligence, and nonability
determinants. Psychology and Aging, 16, 615 628.
Beier, M., & Ackerman, P. (2003). Determinants of health knowledge: An investigation of age, gender, abilities, personality and
interests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 439 440.
Binet, A. (1903). Letude experimental de lintelligence [Experimental study of intelligence]. Paris7 Schleicher.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, achievement motivation and
academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057 1068.
Carroll, J. (1993). Human cognitive ability. Cambridge7 Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. (1967). The theory of fluid and crystallised intelligence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 209 224.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for explaining the personalityintelligence interface. British
Journal of Psychology, 95, 249 264.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1985). The NEO-PI/FFI manual supplement. Odessa7 PAR.
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEOFFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL7 Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
East, R., & Forgas, J. (2002). Mood effects on responding to general knowledge questions. Australian Journal of Psychology,
54, 23 43.
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211 245.
Eysenck, H. (1971). Relationship between intelligence and personality. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 637 650.
Eysenck, H. (1994). Personality and intelligence: Psychometric and experimental approaches. In R. Sternberg, & P. Ruzgis
(Eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 3 31). New York7 Cambridge University Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and Individual Differences, New York7 Plenum.
Furnham, A., Gunter, B., & Peterson, E. (1994). Television distraction and the performance of introverts and extraverts. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 8, 705 711.
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. (1972). Personalityintelligence relations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537 553.
Gottfredson, L. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15, 25 46.
Gottfredson, L., & Deary, I. (2004). Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why? Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 13, 1 4.
Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2002). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive
performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 339 387.
Hicks, J., & Cockman, D. (2003). The effect of general knowledge on source, memory and decision processes. Journal of
Memory and Language, 48, 489 501.
Hofstee, W. (2001). Personality and intelligence: Do they mix? In M. Collis, & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence and personality
(pp. 43 60). London7 Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holland, D., Dollinger, S., Holland, C., & McDonald, D. (1995). The relationship between psychometric intelligence and the
five-factor model of personality in a rehabilitation sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 139 155.
Irwing, P., Cammock, T., & Lynn, R. (2001). Some evidence for the existence of a general factor of semantic memory and its
components. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 857 871.
Kline, P. (1991). Intelligence: The psychometric view. London7 Routledge.
Kline, P. (1994). The handbook of psychological testing. London7 Routledge.
Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14,
389 433.
Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2002). Sex differences in general knowledge, semantic memory and reasoning ability. British Journal of
Psychology, 93, 545 556.
Mariani, C., Sacco, L., & Spinnler, H. (2002). General knowledge of the world: A standardising assessment. Neurological
Sciences, 23, 161 175.
McCrae, R. (1993). Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13,
39 55.
McCrae, R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor V. European Journal of Personality, 13, 39 55.
McCrae, R., & Costa, R. (1985). Updating Normans badequacy taxonomyQ. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
710 731.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence. European Journal of
Personality, 17, 79 94.

90

A. Furnham, T. Chamorro-Premuzic / Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 7990

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Patiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37, 1013 1022.
Raven, J. (1965). Progressive matrices. London7 H K Lewis.
Rolfhus, E., & Ackerman, P. (1996). Self-report knowledge: At the crossroads of ability, interest, and personality. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 174 188.
Rolfhus, E., & Ackerman, P. (1999). Assessing individual differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
511 526.
Runco, M., & Nemiro, J. (2003). Creativity in the moral domain: Integration and implications. Creativity Research, 15,
91 105.
Stankov, L. (1999). Mining on the dno mans landT between intelligence and personality. In P. L. Ackerman, Kyllonen P. C., et
al., (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 315 337). Atlanta7 Georgia
Institute of Technology.
Stankov, L. (2000). Complexity, metacognition, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 28, 121 143.
Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1960). StanfordBinet intelligence scale. New York7 Houghton Mufflin.
Vernon, P. (1950). The structure of human abilities. London7 Methuen.
Vernon, P. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London7 Methuen.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler ability intelligence scalerevised. New York7 Psychological Corporation.
Wonderlic, E. (1992). Wonderlic personnel test. Libertyville, IL7 Wonderlic.
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence
(pp. 581 610). New York7 CIIP.