Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive assessment of the associations of personality and intelligence. It presents a meta-analysis ( N = 162,636, k = 272) of domain, facet, and item-level correlations between personality and intelligence (general, fl uid, and crystallized) for the major Big Five and HEXACO hierarchical frameworks of personality: NEO Personality Inventory – Revised, Big Five Aspect Scales, Big Five Inventory – 2, and HEXACO Personality Inventory – Revised. It provides the fi rst meta-analysis of personality and intelligence to comprehensively examine (a) facet-level correlations for these hierarchical frameworks of personality, (b) item-level correlations, (c) domain- and facet-level predictive models. Age and sex differences in personality and intelligence, and study-level moderators, are also examined. The study was complemented by four of our own unpublished data sets ( N = 26,813) which were used to assess the ability of item-level models to provide generalizable prediction. Results showed that openness ( ρ = .20) and neuroticism ( ρ = − .09) were the strongest Big Five correlates of intelligence and that openness correlated more with crystallized than fl uid intelligence. At the facet level, traits related to intellectual engagement and unconventionality were more strongly related to intelligence than other openness facets, and sociability and orderliness were negatively correlated with intelligence. Facets of gregariousness and excitement seeking had stronger negative correlations, and openness to aesthetics, feelings, and values had stronger positive correlations with crystallized than fl uid intelligence. Facets explained more than twice the variance of domains. Overall, the results provide the most nuanced and robust evidence to date of the relationship between personality and intelligence. It is the fi rst to meta-analytically compare how intelligence relates to domains, facets, and items on the major hierarchical measures of personality. In so doing, it provides a robust empirical basis for informing discussion of the reciprocal pathways through which personality and intelligence interact.