Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 63–67
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Relationship between Cattell’s 16PF and fluid and crystallized intelligence
Nermin Djapo ⇑, Jadranka Kolenovic-Djapo, Ratko Djokic, Indira Fako
Department of Psychology, Philosophical Faculty, University of Sarajevo, Franje Rackog 1, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 December 2010
Received in revised form 3 March 2011
Accepted 9 March 2011
Available online 3 April 2011
Keywords:
16PF
Fluid intelligence
Crystallized intelligence
a b s t r a c t
The aim of the study was to explore the relationship between the five global factors and 16 dimensions of
Cattell’s personality model and fluid and crystallized intelligence. A total of 105 third graders (45.7%
males) of three high schools participated in the research. Fluid intelligence was measured by Raven’s
Advanced Progressive Matrices and crystallized intelligence was measured by the Mill Hill Vocabulary
Scale. Personality traits were measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Anxiety is correlated neither with fluid nor with crystallized intelligence. Extraversion and Self-Control are negatively
correlated with fluid intelligence whereas Tough-Mindedness is positively correlated with it. Independence is positively correlated with crystallized intelligence and Tough-Mindedness is negatively correlated with it. Regression analysis reveals that all broad personality factors, except anxiety, are
significant predictors of fluid intelligence. When combined together, these factors account for 25% of
the variance of fluid intelligence scores. The regression model with crystallized intelligence as a criterion
variable is not statistically significant. The study results are consistent with the Chamorro-Premuzic and
Furnham’s (2005) two-level conceptual framework. Although using a different taxonomy of personality,
the results are in accordance with the model’s presuppositions.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the 1990s, interest in research on the relationship between
intelligence and personality was revived, especially after more detailed analyses of the correlation as interpreted by Saklofske and
Zeidner (1995) and Sternberg and Ruzgis (1994), Ackerman and
Heggestad’s meta-analysis of the interconnectedness of personality constructs and intelligence (1997) and particularly after leading
authors in individual differences psychology reached a consensus
in regards to the organisation of intellectual abilities and
personality structures. Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004),
Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2005) proposed a framework
for interpreting the relationship between intelligence and personality traits. Their two-level conceptual framework is based on the
Big-Five personality model and concepts of fluid and crystallized
intelligence. This study is aimed at testing the basic assumptions
of the Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham conceptual framework
with Cattell’s model of 16 personality factors as a foundation for
the operationalisation of personality traits.
The majority of theoreticians believe that intelligence is hierarchically organised with a general factor on top which can account
for the individual differences in the subordinated factors (Carroll
1993; Gustafsson, 1988). One of the most influential theories of
intelligence is Cattell’s theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +387 33253125.
E-mail address: nermin.djapo@ff.unsa.ba (N. Djapo).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.014
Fluid intelligence refers to the processing of information and the
ability to reason with the aim to understand relationships and abstract propositions (Stankov, 2000), whereas crystallized intelligence refers to the acquisition, storing, organisation and
conceptualisation of pieces of information (Chamorro-Premuzic &
Furnham, 2005). In the field of personality psychology, the Big-Five
personality framework dominates the trait approach to personality. According to the Big Five model, personality traits can be
organised within five broad and basic dimensions: Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience. These fundamental dimensions are personality
dispositions that allow us to understand the consistency of an individual’s thinking, feeling and behavior, relatively independent of
the situation, context and time (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2005).
In studies of the relationship between intelligence and personality traits the most frequent results are low to moderate coefficients of correlation between intelligence and the Big Five
dimensions. The correlation between Openness to Experience and
intelligence is moderate and positive (Ackerman & Heggestad,
1997; Austin et al., 2002; Chamorro-Premuzic, Moutafi, and
Furnham, 2005). Furthermore, studies point to a low and negative
correlation between Conscientiousness and intelligence (Ackerman
& Heggestad, 1997; Austin et al., 2002; Moutafi, Furnham, &
Crump, 2003) whereas the correlation between Neuroticism and
intelligence is usually negative (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997;
Austin et al., 2002). The results of research on the correlation
64
N. Djapo et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 63–67
between Extraversion and intelligence are inconsistent; in some
studies the authors report a positive correlation (e.g. Ackerman &
Heggestad, 1997), while other researchers report a zero correlation
(e.g. Austin et al., 2002), and even a negative correlation (Austin
et al., 2002). Of the Big Five personality traits, Agreeableness is
the least correlated with intelligence. Ackerman and Heggestad
(1997) determined positive, low and statistically insignificant coefficients of correlation between Agreeableness and intelligence.
However, a meta-analytical study by Austin et al. (2002) found
low, negative, statistically significant correlations.
Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004), Chamorro-Premuzic
and Furnham (2005) proposed a two-level conceptual framework
for understanding the results found in investigations of the relationship between the five broad personality traits and fluid and
crystallized intelligence. The first level of the model refers to the
ability as test performance output (measured directly) and to the
effects of Neuroticism and Extraversion on the results of intelligence testing. The negative effects (anxiety, worry, tension, depression, anger) interfere with the cognitive processes needed for an
efficient solution of a problem (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2005). On the other hand, the correlation between Extraversion
and intelligence depends on the nature of the intelligence test
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). Extraverted persons were
more successful in time-limited tests, while the introverts were
more successful in those tasks that were not time-limited and
needed introspection. Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) explained such
a correlation between Extraversion and intelligence by a theory of
arousal. According to this theory introverts have a lower reactive
inhibition due to which they display a tendency to avoid arousal
stimuli, unlike extraverts who show a tendency towards the arousal stimulus. The second level of the model refers to the abilities as
a capacity (i.e., they cannot be measured directly) and to the conceptualisation of the correlation between Conscientiousness and
fluid intelligence on one side and Openness and crystallized intelligence on the other side. Considering the long-term effects of Conscientiousness and Openness on the development of intellectual
abilities, Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2005) refer to these
two traits as the ‘‘investment traits’’. In two studies (Moutafi, Furnham, & Paltiel, 2005; Moutafi et al., 2003) a negative correlation
between Conscientiousness and intelligence was determined. In
order to explain such results the authors proposed a compensation
hypothesis, according to which comparatively lower capability in
competitive surroundings is compensated with higher levels of
Conscientiousness. Besides, it is possible that intelligent individuals do not become more conscientious over time because they rely
on abilities that are sufficient for the execution of every-day cognitive tasks. The positive correlation between Openness and crystallized intelligence is expected, considering the fact that Openness is
associated with intellectual curiosity, lively imagination and flexibility in behavior (McCrae & Costa, 1997) which could leads to the
higher intellectual involvement and knowledge acquisition.
Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, and Petrides (2006) tested the
basic premise of the two-level model using Eysenck’s personality
model. They explored the correlations between Eysenck’s personality dimensions operationalised by Eysenck’s Personality Profiler
(EPP; Eysenck, Barrett, Wilson, & Jackson, 1992) as Emotional Stability, Introversion, Caution (low Psychoticism) and Dissimulation
and verbal and numeric abilities. The results show that Emotional
Stability and Extraversion are positively associated with verbal
abilities, while there was no correlation found between the two
personality dimensions and numeric ability. Moreover, they found
a negative correlation between Caution and numeric abilities.
Overall, the results found were consistent with the two-level
model.
In regards to the conceptual and componential similarities between the Big Five and Cattell’s five global dimensions it seems
interesting to evaluate certain premises of the two-level model
using Cattell’s model of 16 personality factors. Based on the twolevel conceptual framework (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2005), and in consideration of the fluid and crystallized intelligence functions, it could be assumed that Anxiety and Extraversion
should be in negative correlation with the results on the fluid and
crystallized intelligence tests. In consideration of the fact that fluid
intelligence refers to the processing of information and ability to
reason and that it is linked with the capacity and efficacy of working memory, solving fluid memory test tasks requires greater cognitive endeavor than solving crystallized intelligence test tasks.
Thus, we expect a greater negative correlation between Anxiety
and fluid intelligence than between Anxiety and crystallized intelligence. Since fluid intelligence tests are not time constrained, and
thus more suited to introverts, we expect a negative correlation between Extraversion and fluid intelligence. Furthermore, Self-Control should be in negative correlation with the fluid intelligence
test scores, whereas Independence will be in positive correlation
with the crystallized intelligence test scores. Self-Control is conceptually similar to the dimension of Conscientiousness, whereas
Independence is similar to the dimension of Openness in the Big
Five model. We can predict Tough-Mindedness to be in positive
correlation with the fluid intelligence test results. This general factor Cattell named ‘‘Corteria’’, which is shortened from ‘‘cortical
alertness’’ and described those individuals who achieve high results in this factor as alert and prone to dealing with problems in
a cognitive manner (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The study was conducted on a group of 105 students of the third
grade of three high schools in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of
the total number of participants 45.7% were males. Average age of
the participants was M = 17.26 (SD = 0.94.).
2.2. Measures
Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court,
1998) measure fluid intelligence. They represent a non-verbal test
for the evaluation of the ability to understand complex situations,
find meaning in events and of rational perception and thinking.
According to Carpenter, Just, and Shell (1990) Raven’s Progressive
Matrices measure analytical intelligence, that is the ability to reason and produce a solution for problems involving new pieces of
information, without extensive use of an explicit store of declarative knowledge. They consist of two parts. Series I contain 12 items
used for practice and lowering test anxiety. Series II consists of 36
items presented in ascending order of complexity (i.e. from easiest
to hardest). Work-time is not limited.
Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1994) is a
companion measure to the Standard Progressive Matrices and assesses reproductive ability, that is, being able to master, recall
and reproduce verbal information. It consists of 68 items divided
into two segments: Series A (gap filling) and Series B (selection
of the correct answer from several offered). The Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale allows the assessment of the ability to store and recall
information and knowledge that is accumulated over time by the
individual from experiences at home, school, or in the environment
and therefore is based on the extensive use of declarative knowledge. With regard to definition of crystallized intelligence (Stankov, 2000) crystallized abilities are typically measured by a
vocabulary test.
65
N. Djapo et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 63–67
Original version of the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale is translated
and adapted into Croatian language (Križan & Matešić, 2001).
The Sixteen Personality Factors’ Questionnaire (16PF) was devised by Cattell and associates (Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993). It
is to be used in the assessment of 16 primary personality factors,
as well as five global factors. It consists of the 185 items in the form
of multiple-choice questions that, except for Factor B, have three
options. Primary factors to be measured with the 16PF Questionnaire are: A (Warmth); B (Reasoning); C (Emotional Stability), E
(Dominance), F (Liveliness), G (Rule- Consciousness), H (Social
Boldness), I (Sensitivity), L (Vigilance), M (Abstractedness), N (Privateness), O (Apprehension), Q1 (Openness to Change), Q2 (SelfReliance), Q3 (Perfectionism), and Q4 (Tension). The five global factors and corresponding primary factors are: Extraversion (A+, F+,
H+, N , Q2 ), Anxiety (C , L+, O+,Q4+), Self-Control (F , G+, M ,
Q3+), Independence (E+, H+, L+, Q1), and Tough-Mindedness (A ,
I , M , Q1+). The five dimensions of personality were calculated
according to the procedures described in the 16PF Questionnaire
manual (Russell & Karol, 2000).
Table 2
Correlations between fluid and crystallized intelligence and the 16 Personality Factors
(in italic are given corresponding five global factors).
Gf
2.3. Procedure
Participants were tested in an auditorium for the three tests,
during two regular school classes. Time needed to solve the tasks
of Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary
Scale was not limited.
3. Results
Gc
.284**
Warmth (Reserved vs. Warm; Factor A); Extraversion;
Tough-Mindedness
Reasoning (Concrete vs. Abstract; Factor B)
Emotional Stability (Reactive vs. Emotionally Stable;
Factor C); Anxiety
Dominance (Deferential vs. Dominant; Factor E);
Independence
Liveliness (Serious vs. Lively; Factor F); Extraversion, SelfControl
Rule-Consciousness (Expedient vs. Rule-Conscious;
Factor G); Self-Control
Social Boldness (Shy vs. Socially Bold; Factor H);
Extraversion, Independence
Sensitivity (Utilitarian vs. Sensitive; Factor I); ToughMindedness
Vigilance (Trusting vs. Vigilant; Factor L); Anxiety;
Independence
Abstractedness (Grounded vs. Abstracted; Factor M);
Self-Control; Tough-Mindedness
Privateness (Forthright vs. Private; Factor N);
Extraversion
Apprehension (Self-Assured vs. Apprehensive; Factor O);
Anxiety
Openness to Change (Traditional vs. Open to Change;
Factor Q1); Independence, Tough-Mindedness
Self-Reliance (Group-Oriented vs. Self-Reliant; Factor
Q2); Extraversion
Perfectionism (Tolerates Disorder vs. Perfectionistic;
Factor Q3); Self-Control
Tension (Relaxed vs. Tense; Factor Q4); Anxiety
.433
.073
***
.028
.418***
.081
.177*
.145
.073
.142
.238
*
249**
.027
.171(a)
.388***
.198*
.178*
.107
.067
.022
.242**
.014
.205*
.145
.018
.158
.203*
.027
.120
.083
.021
.025
*
The correlations between the results on the fluid (Gf) and crystallized (Gc) intelligence tests and five global personality dimensions are presented in Table 1. The fluid intelligence scores were
negatively correlated with Extraversion (r = .2121, p < .05) and
Self-Control (r = .207, p < .05) and positively with Tough-Mindedness (r = .305, p < .01) while the crystallized intelligence scores
were positively correlated with Independence (r = .219, p < .05),
and negatively with Tough-Mindedness (r = .216, p < .05).
The correlations between Gf and Gc and the 16 personality factors are presented in Table 2. The highest correlation was found between the Gf and the factor of reasoning (B) (r = .433, p < .001). The
Gf were negatively correlated with the factors of Warmth (A)
(r = .284, p < .01), Rule-Consciousness (G) (r = .238, p < .05), Sensitivity (I) (r = .388, p < .001) and Apprehension (O) (r = .205,
p < .05), and positively with the factors of Dominance (E)
(r = .177, p < .05), Vigilance (L) (r = .178, p < .05), Privateness (N)
(r = .242, p < .01), and Self-Reliance (Q2) (r = .203, p < .05). The Gc
were negatively correlated with the factor of Rule-Consciousness
(G) (r = .249, p < .01), and positively with factors of Reasoning
(B) (r = .418, p < .001), and Sensitivity (I) (r = .198, p < .05), whereas
the correlation with the factor of Social Boldness (H) is on the border of statistical significance with p = .05 (r = .171, p = .051).
With the aim to assess the joint effect of the five global dimensions of personality on the Gf and Gc, two standard multiple
Table 1
Correlations between fluid and crystallized intelligence tests and five global
personality dimensions.
Gf
Extraversion
Anxiety
Self-Control
Independence
Tough-Mindedness
*
**
p < .05.
p < .01.
.211*
.047
.207*
.129
.305**
Gc
.065
.091
.155
.219*
.216*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
(a)
p = .05.
Table 3
Standard regressional analysis of five global personality dimensions onto fluid and
crystallized intelligence.
Variables
Gf
b
Extraversion
Anxiety
Self-Control
Independence
Tough-Mindedness
F (5,99)
R
R2
AdjR2
**
***
.329
.126
.230
.366
.396
8.13***
.539
.291
.255
Gc
t
b
3.452**
1.375
2.630**
3.684***
4.284***
.065
.111
.162
.142
.165
2.15
.313
.098
.052
t
.605
1.070
1.637
1.271
1.587
p < .01.
p < .001.
regression analyses were performed. The results are shown in
Table 3.
The results indicate that global dimensions of personality was a
significant predictor of Gf but not Gc, accounting for 25,5% of variance of fluid intelligence scores. The most significant predictor of
Gf was Tough-Mindedness (b = .396), then Independence
(b = .366), Extraversion (b = .329) and Self-Control (b = .230).
4. Discussion
This study investigates the relationship between five global
dimensions and 16 factors of Cattell’s model of personality and
66
N. Djapo et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 63–67
Gf and Gc. The results were analysed in the light of the two-level
conceptual framework model (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2005).
In line with expectations, some aspects of Anxiety are related to
Gf but not with Gc. The results are consistent with the results
found in other studies (Hembree, 1988; Zeidner, 1995; Zeidner,
1998). The fact that Anxiety as a global personality dimension
was not correlated with Gf is not surprising, as the test results
did not have any significant implications for the subjects, who,
we assume, did not find the testing situation upsetting. Apprehension (O+), which includes sensitivity, being prone to excessive worry, insecurity and self-criticism, may be indicative of the influence
of actual intellectual competence on anxiety as explained in
Muller’s (1992) theory, whereas Vigilance (L+) may have a positive
effect on a test situation since it blocks reckless decision-making in
choosing the task solutions.
In line with expectation, Extraversion was negatively correlated
with Gf. The results found are consistent with the results found in
other studies (Eysenck, 1994; Rawlings & Carnie, 1989). Considering that the testing time was not limited, the test situation was
more appropriate for introverts, who indeed reached somewhat
higher results on the fluid intelligence test. At the level of primary
factors, Gf was negatively correlated with Warmth (A+), and positively with Privateness (N+) and Self-Reliance (Q2+). Reserved
(A ), Privateness (N+), and Self – Reliance (Q2) can be connected
with a preference for independent work, a focus on one’s own abilities and skills, and dedication to problem solving, all of which are
qualities of competitive behavior which the school system
encourages.
As expected, Self-Control was negatively correlated with Gf. On
the primary factors level, Rule-Conscientiousness (G+) was negatively correlated with Gf and with Gc, while Dominance (E+) was
positively correlated with Gf. Self-Control is conceptually similar
to Conscientiousness in the Big Five model of personality and it
is in correlation with all the facets of Conscientiousness: competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline and
deliberation (Russell and Karol, 2000). The results found in our research are consistent with the results found in other studies
(Moutafi et al., 2005) and could be considered as support for the
hypothesis of compensation (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2005).
Namely, persons with comparatively lower fluid abilities find it
more difficult to deal with challenges, have more problems tackling new situations, or problem-solving, especially in competitive
surroundings, and thus compensate for this deficiency with conscientiousness and hard work, dedication, good time management
and self-discipline. On the other hand, persons who have high Gf
have no overly expressed need to form traits characteristic for Conscientiousness since they possess capacities and abilities that allow
them to solve the problems without being so well organised or
dedicated to the problem-solving. This mechanism is especially
emphasised in surroundings which are not cognitively challenging
and in which a more mechanical memory rather than reasoning
abilities is more valued.
Independence was positively correlated with Gc but not with
Gf, which is in line with expectations. Independence may be
viewed as a personality trait which has long-term effects on development of intellectual abilities, in particular, crystallized intelligence. Conceptual support for this assumption could be found in
Russell and Karol’s (2000) notion that Independence involves a
tendency to create and express personal beliefs and try out new
things, and that independent persons show intellectual curiosity.
The results of our research could be integrated in the assumption
of the two-level conceptual framework model. On the primary factors level our study demonstrated that there is a positive correlation between Gf and Dominance (E+) and Vigilance (L+).
Dominance can precondition a better position in peer-groups that
allows broader possibilities of using surrounding resources
whereas Vigilance (L+), as stated, has a positive effect on a test
situation.
An interesting result was that Tough-Mindedness was positively correlated with Gf, and negatively with Gc. Like Independence, Tough-Mindedness could have long-term effects on the
development of intellectual abilities, but different for fluid and
for crystallized intelligence. This study reveals negative and relatively high correlations between factors of Warmth (A+) and Sensitivity (I+) with Gf and a positive correlation between Sensitivity
(I+) and Gc. Utilitarian personalities (I ) are interested in the
issues of functioning of things and are prone to thinking about usefulness and objectivity. One of the possible explanations of this result is that the development of Gf co-varies with the development
of utilitarian prone traits. That is, the development of logical reasoning abilities is encouraged by cognitively more demanding surroundings, filled with tasks, problems or questions most frequently
directed at understanding of the functioning of things or objects or
finding relations between the elements of the problem. On the
other hand, Sensitivity (I+) (as a factor conceptually similar to
Big Five facets of Openness to new experiences), could be viewed
as a personality trait that leads to greater intellectual involvement
and knowledge acquisition (Ackerman, 1996). An alternative
explanation is that Sensitivity (as well as other characteristics
of highly open people) could be a consequence of their high intelligence (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). In that case,
high intellectual ability would pre-exist the development of
Sensitivity.
The greatest coefficients of correlation were found between the
results for the tests of fluid intelligence and the Reasoning factor
(B+). Such a correlation was expected, considering that the scale
for the B factor consists of 15 issues that all refer to problem-solving abilities. The factor of reasoning on the 16PF Questionnaire is
the only factor that was operationalised as a factor of maximum
performance, unlike the other factors that were operationalised
as typical behavioral factors.
Although the Big-Five personality framework dominates the
trait approach to personality, present results affirm the robustness
of Cattell‘s 16PF model of personality in predicting intelligence constructs, especially Gf. Construct relations are obtained both at the
level of 16 primary dimensions of personality as well as at the second-order level. The results of the regression analysis show that all
the broad personality factors, apart from Anxiety, are significant
predictors of Gf. However, when the same group of the personality
factors is introduced into the regression equation for the prediction
of the Gc test results, no statistically significant model can be
reached. In addition, significant correlations between primary factors and both fluid and crystallized intelligence are obtained.
The relatively small number of participants limits the generalisability of the results, whereas the correlational nature of the study
does not allow causal conclusions to be drawn on the relations between the variables. However, despite these limitations, the findings of the study are for the most part consistent with results
established in other studies, and the interpretation is logically congruent with the direction of correlation between personality factors and intelligence as predicted by Chamorro-Premuzic and
Furnham’s model (2005). Therefore, the results of the research
additionally support the validity of the two-level conceptual
framework model; using a different taxonomy of personality traits,
the results found are still consistent with the model’s hypotheses.
Still, our research does not enable us to provide a more thorough
explanation of the finding that the personality traits account more
for fluid rather than crystallized intelligence. What is needed is a
longitudinal study which would assess the short- and long-term
effects of the psychological and environmental factors on the intertwined dynamics of personality and intelligence.
N. Djapo et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 63–67
References
Ackerman, P. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process,
personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests:
Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
Austin, A. J., Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C., Fowkes, F. G. R., Padersen, N. L., & Rabbitt,
P. (2002). Relationships between ability and personality: Does intelligence
contribute positively to personal and social adjustment? Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 1391–1411.
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measure: A
theoretical account on the processing in the Raven progressive matrices test.
Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. (1993). Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (5th ed.). Champain, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability
Testing, Inc.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the 16PF.
Champain, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for explaining the
personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual
competence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. (2006). Personality and
intelligence. The relationship of Eysenck’s Giant Three with verbal and
numerical ability. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 147–150.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Moutafi, J., & Furnham, A. (2005). The relationship between
personality traits, subjectively-assessed and fluid intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1517–1528.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Personality and intelligence: Psychometric and experimental
approaches. In R. J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intelligence
(pp. 23–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A
natural science approach. New York: Plenum.
Eysenck, H. J., Barrett, P., Wilson, G., & Jackson, C. (1992). Primary trait
measurement of the 21 components of the P-E-N system. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 8, 109–117.
67
Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988). Hierarchical models of individual differences in cognitive
abilities. In R. J. Stemberg (Ed.). Advances in the psychology of human intelligence
(Vol. 4, pp. 35–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review
of Educational Research, 58, 47–77.
Križan, L., & Matešić, K. (2001). Analiza učinka na Mill Hill ljestvicama rječnika.
[Analysis of performance in Mill Hill vocabulary scales]. Zbornik Učiteljske
akademije, 3(1), 41–45.
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personality predictors
of intelligence: A study using the NEO- personality inventory and the Myers–
Briggs type indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79–94.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Can personality factors predict
intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1021–1033.
Muller, J. H. (1992). Anxiety and performance. In A. P. Smith & D. M. Jones (Eds.),
Handbook of human performance (3rd ed., pp. 127–160). London: Academic
Press.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Raven Manual: Section 4, Advanced
Progressive Matrices, 1998 edition. Oxford UK, Oxford Psychologies Press.
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1994). Manual for Raven‘s progressive matrices
and vocabulary scale. Oxford UK: Oxford Psychologies Press.
Rawlings, D., & Carnie, D. (1989). The interaction of EPQ Extraversion and WAIS
subtest performance under timed and untimed conditions. Personality and
Individual Differences, 10, 453–458.
Russell, M. T., & Karol, D. L. (2000). 16PF Priručnik za primjenu, peto izdanje. [16PF 5th
Ed.], Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
Saklofske, D. H., & Zeidner, M. (1995). International handbook of personality and
intelligence. New York: Plenum.
Stankov, L. (2000). Complexity, metacognition, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence,
28, 121–143.
Sternberg, R. J., & Ruzgis, P. (1994). Personality and intelligence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeidner, M. (1995). Personality trait correlates of intelligence. In D. Saklofske & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence. Perspectives
on individual differences (pp. 299–319). New York: Plenum.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum.