Pdf Personality, Gender And Self-perceived Intelligence

Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality, gender and self-perceived intelligence Adrian Furnham a b

a,*

, Tom Buchanan

b

Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAP, UK Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK

Received 10 February 2004; received in revised form 18 January 2005; accepted 14 February 2005 Available online 11 April 2005

Abstract One finding of research on subjectively estimated intelligence is that women tend to provide lower estimates of general, mathematical, and spatial ability but higher estimates of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence than men. Given that personality variables have been shown to affect such estimates, this study explored the possibility that one reason for the sex differences may be male–female differences in personality and especially in neuroticism/emotional stability. Internet questionnaires were used to obtain personality data and intelligence estimates for 379 people. Analyses showed that while neuroticism was negatively associated with intelligence estimates, it did not completely account for the gender differences. Factor analysis revealed two factors labelled artistic/emotional and academic intelligence. Openness and Extraversion predicted the first factor while academic intelligence was predicted by seven variables and accounted for just over a quarter of the variance. Open, stable, disagreeable, introverted males who had IQ test experience and believed in IQ test validity gave themselves higher scores. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Self-perceived; Multiple intelligence; Gender; Neuroticism; Internet

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7679 5395; fax: +44 20 7679 436 4276. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Furnham).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.011

544

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

1. Introduction Over the last 25 years there has been a great interest in self-assessed or self-estimated intelligence. Starting with the early work of Hogan (1978) and later Beloff (1992) many of these studies have concentrated on the widely replicated sex difference in these estimates (Furnham, Clark, & Bailey, 1999; Furnham & Gasson, 1998). Studies from over 20 countries from China (Zhang & Gong, 2001) through to Germany (Rammstedt & Rammsayer, 2002) and Scotland (Bennett, 2000) have shown males give significantly higher estimates than females for general ‘‘overall’’ intelligence estimates (Furnham, Hosoe, & Tang, 2002). This difference is consistent across countries and populations (school, children, students, adults) although there are wide differences in level (Furnham, Rakow, & Mak, 2002; Furnham, Reeves, & Budhani, 2002). Also, that if participants are asked to estimate multiple intelligence such as those suggested either by Gardner (1983, 1999) or Sternberg (1997) sex differences only occur with respect to mathematical/numerical and spatial intelligence (Furnham, Rakow, Sarmany-Schuller, & De Fruyt, 1999; Furnham, Shahidi, & Baluch, 2002). When asked to estimate relatives, studies suggest that people implicitly believe in the Flynn (1987) effect in that every generation is rated higher (by between 3 and 10 IQ points) than the previous generation. Furthermore, the sex difference appears to be consistent across generations (Furnham, 2000, 2001). A third line of enquiry has examined the relationship between estimated and psychometrically tested intelligence (Borkenau & Liebler, 1993; Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998). Correlations between estimates and scores tend to be around r = .30 but recent research has suggested that these might increase to as much as r = .50 given the tests used and the way estimates are established (Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Moutafi, 2004; Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004; Moutafi, Furnham, & Paltiel, 2004). A few studies have looked at the relationship between personality and intelligence (ChamorroPremuzic & Furnham, 2003a, 2003b). Furnham, Kidwai, and Thomas (2001) found there were significant correlations between various estimates and measured abilities (i.e., verbal r = .26; numerical r = .35) the relationship between actual personality and intelligence score was low. A more recent study regressed the big five personality scores of 231 adults on four self estimates: a computed mean score (of estimates on the seven intelligences) and three factor scores resulting from a varimax rotated factor analysis on the estimates of the seven Gardner multiple intelligences (Furnham & Thomas, 2004). Personality factors accounted for 17% of the variance and indicated that open, agreeable, stable individuals gave the highest estimates. Furnham and Thomas (2004) demonstrated that emotional stability/neuroticism significantly predicted intelligence estimates, with more stable people providing higher estimates. Similar findings arise from work with other populations and estimation methods. Canizares, Torres, Boget, Rumia, and Arroyo (2000) found a negative correlation between neuroticism and subjective estimates of cognitive function in people who had undergone surgery for epilepsy. These subjective estimates were independent of objective measures of cognitive performance. Comijs, Deeg, Dik, Twisk, and Jonker (2002) found that in a large sample of older adults (free from cognitive decline) neuroticism was positively associated with self-reported memory problems. Taken together, these studies suggest that high neuroticism may well be associated with lower subjective estimates of various cognitive abilities. This is consistent with the finding that women underestimate overall

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

545

on mathematic/numerical and spatial intelligence, given that women typically score higher on measures of neuroticism (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992). Women also make higher estimates of emotional (inter/intrapersonal) intelligence (Petrides & Furnham, 2000, 2003; Van der Zee, Thijs, & Schakel, 2002; Van der Zee & Wabeke, 2004). There is evidence that emotional intelligence may be linked to personality traits: for example, Newsome, Day, and Catano (2000) argued that scores on one emotional intelligence test largely reflected emotional stability. Yet it is well established that women score higher on Neuroticism suggesting that whilst they maybe more sensitive to emotional cues in themselves and others, they tend to be made more anxious and stressed by this. This study had various unique features: First it was a web administered voluntary test on line. Second, 10 multiple intelligences were estimated; the ‘‘new’’ light Gardner (1999) dimensions plus two rejected by him. Only one previous study has used all 10 dimensions to assess self estimates of multiple intelligence (Furnham, Tang, Lester, OÕConnor, & Montgomery, 2002). Third, it assessed IQ test beliefs and experience which have been shown to be related to self-assessed intelligence (Dweck, 2000; Furnham & Ward, 2001). This study set out to test one central and four minor hypotheses. The central hypothesis was that the consistent male–female difference in self-estimates may be primarily a function of trait neuroticism as it has been established both that females have higher neuroticism scores than males and also that trait neuroticism appears to relate to lower personal estimates of trait functions (H1). It is also predicted that multiple intelligence will factor into ‘‘core’’ academic (verbal, mathematical, spatial) and ‘‘social intelligence’’ dimensions (musical, body-kinaesthetic, interpersonal intrapersonal) (Furnham, Tang, et al., 2002) (H2). Thirdly, it is predicted that intelligence test experience, more than beliefs about IQ tests is a significant predictor of self-estimated score (Furnham & Ward, 2001) (H3). Fourthly that added in blocks of variables, personality traits (the big five) demography (age, sex, education) and IQ test experience would each add significantly to the amount of variance accounted for in self estimated intelligence (H4). Finally, it is predicted that H3 and H4 would apply to ‘‘core’’ academic intelligence but not to social intelligence (H5).

2. Method 2.1. Participants There were 379 participants of which 129 (34%) were male. They varied in age from 15 to 80 years though two thirds were between 21 and 40 years. Most completed the questionnaire in Europe (29.6%), America (44.9%) or Canada (17.7%) though there were respondents from Africa, Asia, and Oceania. Asked to specify their highest level of education achieved there were 2.1% with only primary school, 14.2% with secondary school, 7.7% with vocational/technical training, 27.7% with some University education, 26.1% with an undergraduate degree, 11.3% with some post graduate education and 10.8% with a post graduate degree. In answers to three specific questions; 82.3% said ‘‘yes, you can become more intelligent’’. In all 69.1% said yes to the question ‘‘Have you ever taken an intelligence test?’’ and 62.1% said yes to ‘‘Do you believe intelligence tests measure intelligence fairly well?’’

546

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

2.2. Materials A set of WWW pages were created for the purposes of data acquisition, hosted on the University of Westminster web server. Personality was assessed via a Five Factor inventory providing indices of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, as operationalised in the Five Factor Model of Costa and McCrae (1992). This 41 item inventory was derived from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999) and previously validated for use on the Internet (Buchanan, Goldberg, & Johnson, 1999). Details are available from the second author. The materials used replicated those previously employed in a paper-and-pencil study (Furnham, 2000, 2001). At the top of the page was a piece of text describing the distribution of intelligence test scores and an image of the normal distribution, with IQ scores, standard deviation and descriptive labels (e.g., ‘‘average’’, ‘‘gifted’’) marked along the bottom axis. Following this was the text ‘‘But there are different types of intelligence. We want you to estimate your overall IQ and your score on 10 basic types of intelligence. Your scores on the personality test you have just taken will also be used in analysing the data’’. Below this, participants were asked to provide an estimate of their general IQ by typing a number in a response box. A brief definition was supplied for each type of intelligence. Participants were then asked to indicate whether they believed one could learn to become more intelligent, whether they had ever taken an IQ test, and whether they believed IQ tests measured intelligence fairly well. 2.3. Procedure Participants were recruited through an existing personality assessment website (apply to second author for website address) that hosts a Five Factor personality inventory as described above. This has been ‘‘live’’ on the internet for several years, and attracts over a thousand visitors per month. Of the approximately 9300 people who completed the personality inventory during the period of the study, approximately, 700 (an exact number cannot be given due to multiple submissions—see below) went on to submit data on the IQ estimation pages.

3. Results Before results were analysed the date were screened, processed and cleaned: details from second author. 3.1. Sex differences and neuroticism Table 1 shows the means for the 11 different estimates of intelligence. First men and women were compared using a MANCOVA with the overall and 10 multiple intelligences as dependent variables (varying age, education, test experience and beliefs about intelligence). This was significant (F(11, 349) = 6.60, p < .001) and indicated males gave higher self-estimates than females on some combination of the dependent variables.

Estimate

Male N = 129

Female N = 250

F

Overall intelligence 1. Verbal or linguistic intelligence (the ability to use words) 2. Logical or mathematical intelligence (the ability to reason logically, solve number problems) 3. Spatial intelligence (the ability to find your way around the environment and form mental images) 4. Musical intelligence (the ability to perceive and create pitch and rhythm) 5. Body-kinesthetic intelligence (the ability to carry out motor movements) 6. Interpersonal intelligence (the ability to understand other people) 7. Intrapersonal intelligence (the ability to understand yourself and develop a sense of your own identity) 8. Existential intelligence (the ability to understand the significance of life, the meaning of death and the experience of love) 9. Spiritual intelligence (the ability to engage in thinking about cosmic issues, the achievement of a state of being e.g., achieving trance states, and the ability to have spiritual effect on others) 10. Naturalistic intelligence (the ability to identify and employ many distinctions in the natural world e.g., categorizing species membership)

124.02 (14.37) 120.36 (17.49) 118.71 (19.65)

116.48 (12.68) 118.39 (15.35) 105.45 (16.15)

23.16*** .40 46.97***

118.45 (18.04)

108.48 (17.02)

25.14***

107.34 107.54 114.85 118.92

(19.13) (16.49) (18.50) (19.34)

103.6 (17.87) 103.80 (16.06) 117.32 (14.80) 117.19 (15.75)

2.90 4.10* 2.51 .36

118.77 (18.53)

116.97 (16.09)

.71

109.09 (19.52)

109.13 (18.06)

.01

110.22 (17.26)

106.55 (15.74)

3.40

* ***

p < .05. p < .001.

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Table 1 Means (standard deviations) and ANCOVA results for male–female sex differences

547

548

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Table 2 Means (standard deviations) and t-test results for male–female personality scores Variable

Male N = 129

Female N = 250

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to experience

27.90 (8.26) 25.77 (5.33) 32.81 (7.96) 20.18 (7.00) 26.6 (5.25)

29.90 27.35 35.68 22.03 27.59

(7.05) (4.33) (7.56) (6.87) (4.75)

t 2.34* 2.92** 3.45*** 2.47** 1.84

*

p < .05. p < .01. *** p < .001. **

A series of ANCOVAs (with the same covariates) were then run on each of the intelligence estimates (shown in Table 1). Men and women differed on their estimates of overall, logical, spatial, and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, with men providing higher estimates on each. Sex differences on the personality measure are shown in Table 2. As predicted, women had higher neuroticism scores than men (t(377) = 2.47, p < .01) with means of 22.03 (SD = 6.87) and 20.18 (SD = 7.00), respectively (Table 2). Also as predicted, neuroticism correlated negatively with the four intelligence estimates on which men and women differed (Table 3; correlations between all personality variables and intelligence estimates are presented in Table 4). Accordingly, the four significant ANCOVAs were repeated with neuroticism as an additional covariate. Gender differences remained significant for the overall (F(1, 363) = 22.02, p < .001; estimated marginal means 123.4 for men and 117.0 for women), logical (F(1, 360) = 42.94, p < .001; estimated marginal means 118.1 and 106.2), and spatial (F(1, 361) = 22.29, p < .001; estimated marginal means 117.7 and 108.8) intelligence estimates. However, there was now no significant effect of gender on bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (F(1, 360) = 3.05, p > .08; estimated marginal means 107.1 and 104.0). 3.2. Regression analyses The five personality factors were first regressed onto the overall estimate of intelligence (F(5, 365) = 9.81, p < .001, Adj. R2 = .11); then the personality factors plus demography (age and education) (F(7, 363) = 7.84 p < .001, Adj. R2 = .12); then personality plus demography, plus the answers to the three questions about intelligence (F(10, 360) = 12.06, p < .001, Adj. R2 = .23). The results for each of these models, along with the final regression, in which gender was added,

Table 3 Correlations between neuroticism and intelligence estimates for which there were sex differences Estimate Overall Logical Spatial Bodily kinesthetic

r .093 .111 .099 .186

N

p < (1-tailed)

379 376 377 376

.035 .015 .027 .001

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

549

Table 4 Correlations (PearsonÕs r, two tailed) between personality scores and intelligence estimates Estimate Overall Verbal Logical Spatial Musical Body kinesthetic Interpersonal Intrapersonal Existential Spiritual Naturalistic

N 379 377 376 377 377 376 376 376 375 376 376

Extraversion, r *

.119 .009 .151** .008 .001 .195*** .301*** .123* .155** .084 .023

Agreeableness, r .095 .007 .141** .109* .005 .066 .238*** .047 .091 .161** .046

Conscientiousness, r .034 .041 .049 .007 .015 .072 .136** .040 .096 .034 .114*

Neuroticism, r .093 .019 .111* .099 .012 .186*** .184*** .172*** .139** .120* .048

Openness, r .186*** .219*** .068 .131* .181*** .168*** .206*** .245*** .320*** .364*** .227***

*

p < .05. p < .01. *** p < .001. **

are shown in Table 5. Males who had taken an IQ test and believed them to be valid and who were stable, open, introverted and disagreeable gave the highest estimates. 3.3. Factor analysis An exploratory, VARIMAX rotated factor analysis yielded two factors that accounted for just over half the variance. An oblique rotation yielded almost identical results. Essentially the results indicated the first factor comprised the socio-emotional intelligence and the second the academic– cognitive intelligence. Musical intelligence loaded almost equally on both factors. Loadings of each of the estimates are shown in Table 6. 3.4. Further regressions Table 7 shows the results when personality, demography, beliefs and gender were regressed onto the two factor scores. The regression for the socio-emotional factor was significant. It indicated that open extraverts who had not taken an IQ test believed they had a higher score. Only test experience added additional variance in the other regressions. The regression onto the second factor was also significant, both in the loadings and the amount of variance accounted for. In the final model tested, the results for the second factor academic–cognitive intelligence were almost identical to those for the general estimate in Table 5.

4. Discussion The regression analysis shows that while several variables (including neuroticism) do predict estimates of general intelligence, gender itself accounts for a significant proportion of variance over and above any personality variables, demographic variables, or beliefs about or experience

550

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Table 5 Results of regressions onto overall IQ estimate Beta

t

Model 1 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness

.20 .22 .00 .25 .26

3.50*** 4.00*** .01 4.35*** 4.97***

Model 2 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Age Education

.19 .23 .01 .24 .25 .03 .12

3.44*** 4.07*** .20 4.08*** 4.82*** .47 2.28*

Model 3 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Age Education Learn to be intelligent Taken a test Tests valid

.16 .20 .00 .24 .22 .05 .09 .08 .32 .09

3.03** 3.76*** .07 4.35*** 4.34*** 1.01 1.76 1.79 6.86*** 1.95

Model 4 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Age Education Learn to be intelligent Taken a test Tests valid Gender

.12 .16 .04 .17 .23 .06 .09 .08 .31 .10 .20

2.41* 3.07** .83 3.17** 4.71*** 1.19 1.71 1.83 6.63*** 2.16* 4.18***

Adj. R2

R2 change

.11

.12

.12

.01

.23

.12

.26

.04

Note: For final model, F(11, 359) = 13.05***, Adj. R2 = .26. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

with intelligence tests. The same is true when one looks at the factor scores: gender significantly predicts the second derived factor, on which logical and spatial intelligence have a very strong

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

551

Table 6 Factor analysis of the 10 multiple intelligences Intelligences

F1

F2

Interpersonal Intrapersonal Existential Spiritual Body kinesthetic Musical Logical Spatial Naturalistic Verbal Eigenvalue Variance

.84 .77 .71 .64 .50 .39 .02 .24 .43 .38 4.12 41.15%

.03 .24 .33 .32 .20 .37 .84 .72 .57 .54 1.15 11.46%

Note: Highest loadings are shown in bold type.

loading. Beloff (1992) attributed these replicable and robust effects to socialisation as did Beyer (1999). That is, cultures socialise hubris into males and humility into females, which accounts for outliers who have modest psychometric IQ scores who believe they are bright (predominantly males) compared to those with high IQ scores who profess only modest scores (predominantly females). Previous work has shown that women provide higher estimates of their interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence than men (Furnham & Petrides, 2004). However, this was not the case in the current sample, either for the individual estimates of interpersonal and intrapersonal ability, or for the first derived factor, on which these variables had the highest loadings. A possible explanation for this may be the way in which participants were recruited—all members of the current sample were people who had an interest in psychology and their own personalities in particular, given that they had chosen to go to a personality-assessment website. It is thus possible that the men in the current sample were (or at least considered themselves to be) higher on ‘‘emotional intelligence’’ related constructs than average. The desire for self-exploration that presumably motivated these people to take the personality test is theoretically consistent with higher levels of intrapersonal intelligence, in terms of GardnerÕs model. Thus, the failure to replicate the findings of Furnham and Petrides (2004) may be largely attributable to this sampling bias. When personality (the big five), demography (sex, age), test experience, and attitudes and gender were regressed onto the overall self-estimated IQ score (see Table 3) it was apparent that these factors accounted for a quarter of the variance. Open, stable, disagreeable, introverted males who had taken an IQ test and believed in their validity gave themselves higher scores. Age and education had little effect as did the Dweck (2000) self-theory. Personality alone accounted for about a 10th of the variance, which was doubled by test beliefs and experience. Over and above these factors gender accounted for only three percent of the variance. These results concur both with Furnham and Ward (2001) who demonstrated that test experience is a strong predictor of test scores (no doubt through feedback) and also that personality is predictably related to self-estimates (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004; Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004; Furnham & Thomas, 2004).

552

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Table 7 Results of regressions onto the two factor scores Factor 1 Beta

Factor 2 2

t

Model 1 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness

.20 .07 .06 .05 .30

3.79*** 1.24 1.11 .84 6.08***

Model 2 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Age Education

.20 .06 .05 .04 .30 .03 .05

3.78*** 1.12 .93 .65 5.94*** .47 .94

Model 3 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Age Education Learn to be intelligent Taken a test Tests valid

.21 .06 .05 .05 .274 .03 .03 .00 .70 .07

3.85*** 1.10 .97 .87 5.41*** .53 .62 .02 2.02* 1.49

Model 4 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Age Education Learn to be intelligent Taken a test Tests valid Gender

.20 .05 .04 .06 .27 .03 .03 .00 .10 .07 .03

3.71*** .99 .85 .97 5.35*** .55 .64 .01 2.05* 1.51 .52

2

Adj. R

R change

.18

.19

.18

.19

.19

Beta

t

.23 .28 .01 .22 .21

4.07*** 4.96*** .20 3.87 4.00***

.22 .28 .00 .21 .20 .03 .10

4.00*** 4.98*** .03 3.61*** 3.84*** .55 1.84

.20 .25 .01 .21 .17 .05 .07 .02 .31 .09

3.74*** 4.71*** .22 3.8*** 3.33*** .96 1.36 .51 6.43*** 1.92

.15 .19 .07 .13 .19 .07 .06 .03 .28 .10 .30

2.93** 3.80*** 1.40 2.38** 3.93*** 1.30 1.22 .63 6.21*** 2.29* 6.05***

.00

.01

.00

Adj. R2

R2 change

.11

.123

.11

.00

.21

.10

.18

.07

Note: For final model, for Factor 1 (social–emotional), F(11, 354) = 8.63***, Adj. R2 = .19. For Factor 2 (academic– cognitive), F(11, 354) = 14.15***, Adj. R2 = .28. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

553

As predicted, the 10 estimates appear to form two clear clusters: one comprising abilities included in conventional views of academic/cognitive intelligence, the other comprising estimates more related to social or emotional views of intelligence. One estimate (musical ability) loads almost equally on both factors which has been found before (Furnham, Tang, et al., 2002). The regressional analysis onto the two factors scores shows clearly and as predicted that the four blocks of factors are much more predictive of the conventional/academic conception of intelligence than of social intelligence. Indeed there were only three significant predictors of the socio-emotional factor scores and they did not include intelligence. Open extraverts with IQ test experience gave higher scores. Gender differences in self-estimated intelligence must be explained in some other way than personality differences between men and women. This paper has shown that personality and gender factors relate systematically to self-perceived conventional intelligence. They also show that test experience (and to a lesser extent belief in test validity) are strongly predictive of these scores. It is possible that a combination of experiences leads to these findings. Males seem socialised in many societies into being more self-confident about their abilities. This may lead them into seeking out and doing IQ tests which provide useful (and hopefully valid) feedback on their performance. This increases both their confidence in the test and their own ability. Predictably the personality variable consistently, that is more highly correlated with self-estimated scores is, openness which has been thought of as the best proxy-measure of intelligence (Ackerman, 1997; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a, 2003b, 2004). This study with its web based administration and international participants panel replicated many other papersÕ findings which suggest the universal nature of the findings. However, all these studies have been cross-sectional and the above suggestion implies that various of the factors examined here conspire over time to lead individuals with a particular socialisation history and personality to take more of an interest in tests and that these experiences accentuate beliefs in their own ability.

References Ackerman, P. L. (1997). Personality, self-concept, interests and intelligence: Which construct doesnÕt fit? Journal of Personality, 65, 171–201. Beloff, H. (1992). Mother, father and me: Our IQ. The Psychologist, 5, 309–311. Bennett, M. (2000). Gender differences in the self-estimates of ability. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52, 23–28. Beyer, S. (1999). Gender differences in accuracy of grade expectations and evaluations. Sex Roles, 41, 279–296. Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self ratings, partner ratings and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 546–553. Buchanan, T., Goldberg, L. R., & Johnson, J. A. (November 1999). WWW personality assessment: Evaluation of an online Five Factor Inventory. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Computers in Psychology, Los Angeles, CA. Canizares, S., Torres, X., Boget, T., Rumia, J., & Arroyo, S. (2000). Does neuroticism influence cognitive selfassessment after epilepsy surgery? Epilepsia, 41, 1303–1309. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Journal of Research Personality, 37, 319–338. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality traits and academic performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237–250.

554

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for understanding the personality–intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Moutafi, J. (2004). Self-estimated personality predicts psychometric intelligence better than well-established personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 505–513. Comijs, H. C., Deeg, D. J. H., Dik, M. G., Twisk, J. W. R., & Jonker, C. (2002). Memory complaints the association with psycho-affective and health problems and the role of personality characteristics. Journal of Affective Disorders, 72, 157–165. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories. Philadelphia: Psychologist Press. Flynn, J. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191. Furnham, A. (2000). ParentÕs estimates of their own and their childrenÕs 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, R. (2004). Estimating oneÕs own personality and intelligence score. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 1–12. Furnham, A., Clark, K., & Bailey, K. (1999). Sex differences in estimates of multiple intelligences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 247–259. Furnham, A., & Gasson, L. (1998). Sex differences in parental estimates of their childrenÕs intelligence. Sex Roles, 38, 151–162. Furnham, A., Hosoe, T., & Tang, T. (2002). Male hubris and female humility? A cross-cultural study of ratings of self, parental and sibling multiple intelligence in America, Britain and Japan. Intelligence, 30, 101–115. Furnham, A., Kidwai, A., & Thomas, C. (2001). Personality, psychometric intelligence and self-estimated intelligence. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 16, 97–114. Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2004). Parental estimates of five intelligences. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 10–17. Furnham, A., Rakow, R., & Mak, T. (2002). The determinants of parentsÕ beliefs about the intelligence of their children: A study from Hong Kong. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 343–352. Furnham, A., Rakow, T., Sarmany-Schuller, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). European differences in self perceived multiple intelligences. European Psychologist, 4, 131–138. Furnham, A., Reeves, E., & Budhani, S. (2002). Parents think their sons are brighter then their daughters. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 24–39. Furnham, A., Shahidi, S., & Baluch, B. (2002). Sex and culture differences in perceptions of estimated multiple intelligences for self and family. A British–Iranian comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 270–285. Furnham, A., Tang, T., Lester, D., OÕConnor, R., & Montgomery, R. (2002). Self-estimates of ten multiple intelligences: Sex and national differences and the perceptions of famous people. European Psychologist, 7, 1–11. Furnham, A., & Thomas, C. (2004). Parents gender and personality and estimates of their own and their childrenÕs intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 887–903. Furnham, A., & Ward, C. (2001). Sex differences, test experiences and the self-estimation of multiple intelligences. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30, 52–59. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth public-domain personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Hogan, H. W. (1978). IQ self-estimates of males and females. Journal of Social Psychology, 106, 137–138. Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013–1022. Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005–1016.

A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

555

Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, M. S. M. (1998). Self-report measures of intelligence: Are they still useful as proxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality, 66, 523–555. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). Gender differences in measured and self-estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles, 42, 449–461. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–58. Rammstedt, B., & Rammsayer, T. H. (2002). Gender differences in self-estimated intelligence and their relation to gender-role orientation. European Journal of Personality, 16, 369–382. Sternberg, R. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume. Van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, I. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic intelligence and the big five. European Journal of Personality, 16, 103–125. Van der Zee, K., & Wabeke, R. (2004). Is trait emotional intelligence simply more than just a trait? European Journal of Personality, 18, 243–263. Zhang, Y.-J., & Gong, Y.-X. (2001). Self-estimated intelligence and its related factors. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 193–195.