Personality and Intelligence

Lecturer:

Eric Vassilikos

Nomothetic approach Study of individuals based on general

categorisations Focus on:

The population at large Shared personality dimensions

Basic assumptions: Universality of traits Categorisation based on combinations of

personality dimensions.

Idiographic approach Study of the individual in detail in terms of his/her

unique characteristics. Focus on:

Pattern & organisation of traits within the individual (intrapersonal)

The unique combination of personality dimensions of a single individual.

Basic assumptions: People seen as unique in terms of their personality structure Categorisation of individuals seen as inappropriate

oversimplification of their individual differences

Nomothetic vs. Idiographic approach Nomothetic approach

Effective for the systematic analysis and prediction of behaviour

More reliable and scientific Inappropriate for deductions about specific individuals

Idiographic approach Effective for in-depth understanding of an individual Emphasis on subjective and non-standardised (i.e. less

scientific) procedures Inappropriate for findings’ generalisation

The lexical hypothesis Socially relevant and salient personality characteristics

are encoded in our natural language Focus on the personality vocabulary in our daily interactions Terms that ‘distinguish the behaviour of one human being

from that of another’ (Allport & Odbert, 1936) The personality vocabulary includes:

Personality traits – Generalised and personalised determining tendencies of an individual, characterised by consistency and stability

Temporary states/Moods Evaluative judgments Physical characteristics, capacities and abilities

Trait emphasis

Emphasis on the practical/empirical aspects of everyday life

The reign of factor analysis Eysenck’s 3 factors/dimensions Cattell’s 16 Personality Factors (16PF)

Surface traits Source traits

Hierarchical nature of traits

Trait emphasis - Eysenck

NEUROTICISMNEUROTICISM

EMOTIONAL STABILITYEMOTIONAL STABILITY

INTROVERSIONINTROVERSION EXTRAVERSIONEXTRAVERSION

MoodyAnxious

RigidSoberPessimistic

ReservedUnsociable

Quiet

SociableOutgoing

TalkativeResponsiveEasygoingLively

CarefreeLeadership

PassiveCarefulThoughtful

Peaceful

ControlledReliableEven-temperedCalm

TouchyRestlessAggressive

ExcitableChangeable

ImpulsiveOptimistic

Active

Trait emphasis - Cattell

The Big Five

Five fundamental universal questions (Goldberg, 1981): Is X active and dominant or passive and

submissive? Can I count on X? Is X warm and pleasant or cold and

distant? Is X crazy/unpredictable or sane/stable? Is X smart or dumb?

The Big Five (Costa & McCrae) Openness to experience - Culture, intellect,

receptivity to new ideas/approaches, imagination, novelty seeking

Conscientiousness - Thorough, reliable, self-disciplined, competent, orderly, dutiful (Eysenck’s P)

Extraversion - Sociable, outgoing, noisy, assertive, active, excitement seeking (Eysenck’s E)

Agreeableness - Obeys rules, trusting, cooperative, tender-minded, straightforward, modest (Eysenck’s P)

Neuroticism - Worried, anxious, angry, hostile, depressed, self-conscious, vulnerable (Eysenck’s N)

NEO-PI (1985)

240 items: 5 factors * 6 facets * 8 items rated on a 5 point rating scale (Revised in 1992)

Correlates with other questionnaires (concurrent validity)

Validated against relevant behaviours (predictive validity)

Integrates the theories and measures of Eysenck & Cattell

The impact of personality traits Perception

Interpreting the social environment Salience of environmental stimuli

Traits forge our experience Selection of and interaction with the

environment Behaviour

E.g. Conscientiousness vs. Health/Longevity/Substance abuse

E.g. Openness to experience vs. Academic performance

E.g. Extraversion vs. Status attainment

Self-efficacy The perceived ability to cope with specific situations

or perform certain tasks successfully Self-efficacy judgments affect

The activities we engage in The effort we expend The persistence we show Our emotional reaction to our outcomes

Emphasis on a person’s context-specific competencies/skills, in terms of: Thinking about tasks/problems (cognitive component) Performing tasks or enacting solutions (behavioural

component)

Locus of control (Rotter, 1982) Social learning theory

The likelihood of a person acting in a particular way is determined by the desirability and probability of the expected outcome

Locus of control – Beliefs about whether the outcomes of behaviour are typically under our control (internal) or depend on the environment (external) Internal LOC: personal accountability/responsibility;

obssesive need for control/increased guilt in extreme cases External LOC: -> Low expectations/improvement potential,

belief in fate/luck; prone to excessive idealism and addiction in extreme cases

Other relevant personality variables

Self-monitoring The extent to which one’s behaviour is

influenced by internal factors, such as values, beliefs, and attitudes; or alternatively by external factors, such as the demands of a given situation, or the reaction of others.

Sensation seeking The desire to seek novel and challenging

experiences

Intelligence

Hierarchical Models of Intelligence

Models of intelligence where a general ability factor (g) is overarching among a number of specialized ability factors

Spearman’s g A factor-analysis driven operationalisation of

intelligence

Binet Focus on ‘mental age’: measure of intellectual

development reflecting level of age-graded problems a child is able to solve

18 

Carroll’s (1993) General intellect (g)

Fluid intelligence Quantitative reasoning

Crystallised intelligence Language comprehension, vocabulary

General memory & learning Memory span, associative memory

Visual perception Visual and spatial discrimination

Auditory perception Phonemic and musical discrimination

Retrieval ability Creativity, naming facility

Cognitive speed Perceptual speed, rate of test-taking

Processing speed Reaction time, speed of decision-making

Hierarchical Models of Intelligence

Standardised norm-referenced test:WAIS-III intelligence test

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Starting points Behaviours developing at similar ages Behaviours affected similarly by drugs or partial brain

damage Behaviours (dis)appearing together in geniuses and

people with learning difficulties Behaviours interfering with one another when

performing 2 tasks simultaneously Behaviours utilising common sets of symbols

(e.g. music, math) Transferring of performance from one task to another

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Belief in relatively separate mental faculties, with loose and non-predictable relations with one another

Intelligences corresponding to specific abilities Linguistic Logico-mathematical Spatial Musical Bodily kinesthetic Intrapersonal Interpersonal Naturalistic Existential

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Implications for brain damage vs. skills Eurocentric bias of traditional IQ tests

Diversity of intelligence

Critique Intelligences vs. abilities: Need for distinction? Ease of distinction among narrow intelligences/abilities Measurement inefficiencies / Low validity Falsified non-correlation of intelligences Issues of adaptation

Are narrow intelligences necessary for effective adaptation?