7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
1/28
IMAGINATION, COGNITION AND PERSONALITY, Vol. 25(2) 119-145, 2005-2006
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOMETRIC AND
SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE, CREATIVITY,
PERSONALITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
ADRIAN FURNHAM
JANE ZHANG
University College London
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC
Goldsmiths College London
ABSTRACT
This longitudinal study aimed to explore the nature of the relationships
between personality Big Five as measured by the (NEO PI-R), psychometric
and self-estimated intelligence (Ravens, Wonderlic and Baddeley Tests) and
creativity (Barron Welsh Test). A model was developed which proposed that
both self-estimated intelligence (SEI) and creativity (SEC) as well as theBig Five personality traits, predicted both psychometric intelligence and
creativity which in turn predicted academic performance. Results showed that
Openness was significantly correlated with, and predicted, fluid intelligence
(Ravens) as well as psychometric Creativity (Barron Welsh). SEI was found
to be predictive of intelligence scores on all three IQ tests. Openness to
Experience (positively) and Conscientiousness (negatively) was found to
predict psychometric Creativity. Males gave consistently higher estimates
than females in SEI and SEC. Academic performance was found to be
predicted by trait Conscientiousness, and also by Baddeley (fluid
intelligence). Implications of this study are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, there has been an increase in research into the relationship
between intelligence and personality (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004a,
119
2006, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
2/28
2004b). The majority of studies investigating the relationship between personality
factors and psychometric intelligence have yielded small but replicated effects
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, 2005;
Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2003). There have also
been various studies on the relationship between self-estimated and psycho-
metrically measured personality and intelligence (Furnham & Chamorro-
Premuzic, 2004a,b; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Moutafi, 2004). This study
extends this research program by adding self-assessed and psychometric creativity
to the above variables. In a theoretical model (see Figure 1) we examine to what
extent three psychometrically measured variables (creativity, personality and
intelligence) and two self-assessed variables (creativity, intelligence) predict
academic performance. A central issue is whether a) creativity is related to
university based grades (academic achievement) and b) whether self-assessedfactors add an incremental validity over psychometrically assessed variables.
PERSONALITY TRAITS ANDINTELLIGENCE
In a review of the literature Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic (2004a) sug-
gested it was possible to draw links between intelligence and each of the Big Five
Personality factors. Openness to Experience is repeatedly found to be the per-
sonality factor most influential on intelligence in this area of research (Furnham
& Thomas, 2004; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). In particular it correlates very
strongly with crystallized intelligence reporting correlations of up to r= .40
(Brand, 1994; Goff & Ackerman, 1992) and more recently r= .50 (Chamorro-
Premuzic, Furnham & Moutafi, 2004).
Neuroticism, in particular the elements of anxiety, angry hostility and
depression, has been found to be modestly negatively correlated with intelligence
in various studies (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Hembre, 1988, Zeidner, 1995).
This can be explained by the negative effects that anxiety can have on perform-
ance in academia and IQ tests. This reasoning is supported by Ackerman and
Heggestads (1997) findings of a substantial negative correlation between
self-reported test anxiety and general intelligence test performance.
Extraversion has been occasionally positively correlated with intelligence
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Lynn, Hampson & Magee, 1984), although
correlations are rather modest. It seems that this relationship may be dependent
on the type of test used and precisely what it measures. Zeidner (1995) argued
that extroverts have an advantage in performance taskswhich use quickacquisition of automatic motor sequences; however, introverts have an advantage
in verbal tasksusing superior associative learning ability. This type of asser-
tion addressing test conditions and test type can be explained through the dif-
ferent personalitys responses to arousal in Eysenck and Eysencks (1985)
arousal theory.
120 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
3/28
Conscientiousness has been found to be rather weakly related to intellectual
abilities (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). Furnham,
Chamorro-Premuzic, and Moutafi (2005) reported a significant negative
correlation between Conscientiousness and Baddeley Reasoning Test (BRT)
measured intelligence (fluid intelligence). They suggested that this could pos-
sibly be due to the participants with lower fluid intelligence compensating for
this in a high pressure academic environment with dedication, determination
and studious habits which are all indicative of Conscientiousness. Furnham and
Thomas (2004) reported that in general, there were few significant correlations
between Conscientiousness and intelligence, although, interestingly conscien-
tiousness is strongly and repeatedly positively correlated with performance in
both work and academia (Barrick & Mount, 1994; De Raad, 1996; Goff &
Ackerman, 1992).There seems to be near zero correlations between Agreeableness and intel-
ligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997), because the major components of
agreeableness such as trust, modesty and compliance seem to have no bearing on
actual intellectual ability but may influence self evaluations of ability.
It seems that personality and psychometric intelligence are only mostly related
indirectly with mediation from other factors such as self-estimated intelligence
(SEI) or test-taking style.
SEI, AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH INTELLIGENCE
AND PERSONALITY
Research into SEI and actual intelligence performance has shown the two
factors to be significantly positively correlated between r= .30 and r= .50
(Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004a; Moutafi, Chamorro-Premuzic, &
Furnham, 2004). Recent research into this area has shown predictable correla-
tions between SEI and psychometric intelligence test performance (Paulus,
Lysy, & Yik, 1998; Furnham, 2001) and has highlighted the importance of
introducing SEI into the personality-intelligence relationship. Indeed it lies at the
heart of the model proposed by Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004a). The
model places self-assessed intelligence as a moderator and mediator variable
between personality traits and measures of both crystalized and fluid intelligence.
Personality variables, as a whole, has been found to predict SEI, accounting
for up to 17% of SEI variance in one study (Furnham & Thomas, 2004). Repeated
studies indicate that Neuroticism is associated with lower levels of SEI (Furnham
& Thomas, 2004; Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, 2005) which canbe explained by Neuroticism also being related to poor self-concept (Wells
& Matthews, 1994).
Extraversion, notably self-confidence, was positively linked with higher
levels of SEI (Furnham & Thomas, 2004; Furnham, Kidwai, & Thomas, 2001).
Openness to Experience was also found to correlate positively with SAI
SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 121
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
4/28
(Subjectively assessed intelligencesame as SEI). Furnham and Thomas (2004)
also found that Agreeableness was negatively correlated with SEI, as one of
the major components of Agreeableness is modesty, which by nature suggests
lower self-evaluation.
One recent article study by Furnham et al. (2005) found that personality
variables weakly predict IQ performance (intelligence) but SEI acts as a mediator
between these factors, thus personality directly predicts SEI and in turn, SEI
directly predicts IQ performance. Multiple regressions in a study by Furnham,
Chamorro-Premuzic and Moutafi (2005) using the Baddeley Reasoning Test
and the Wonderlic Personnel Test (which are both used in this study), showed
that psychometric intelligence was predicted by Conscientiousness and SEI,
and that SEI was again negatively predicted by Neuroticism (mainly anxiety) and
Agreeableness (mainly modesty).Interestingly, SEI was correlated with different types of intelligence in each
gender; in males it was numerical intelligence (r= .40) and in females it was
spatial and verbal (r= .55 and r= .42 respectively) and results tended to indi-
cate that males also overestimated over females in mathematical and spatial
intelligences compared to females (Furnham, 2001). Differences in gender again
affected SEI with females generally tending to give lower SEIs than males, a
finding that is in consensus with abundant research into gender differences in
self-reported ability. This study is also concerned with the relationship between
intelligence, personality and SEI, but also with measures of creativity and the
yet unused measure of self-estimated creativity (SEC).
CREATIVITY, INTELLIGENCE, AND PERSONALITY
Sternberg and Lubart (1995) believed that the universal factors required for
creativity must be novelty (e.g., originality and newness) and appropriateness,
whilst others believe that creativity is defined in terms of a specific process or
mechanism (Weisberg, 1986). Indeed all the major researchers in this area define
creativity in this way (Amabile, 1989; Barron, 1969). Gabora (1999) recently
claimed that creative processing required a person to shift cognitively from
associative thinking to cause and effect thinking. Eysenck (1995) defines
creativity as a latent trait underlying creative behaviors and that creative
achievement/performance is a combined function of personality, cognitive and
environmental variables.
There are perhaps five major positions to take on the relationship between
intelligence and creativity as outlined in Sternbergs (1999) Handbook of Creativity. The first is that creativity is a subset of intelligence, the second
that intelligence is a subset of creativity, the thirdbeing intelligence and creativity
are the same thing and the fourth being that intelligence and creativity are
completely different and unrelated. The fifth and most popular position is that
they are overlapping sets.
122 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
5/28
Cattell (1971) believed that real life creativity was determined by parts
of ones general intelligence, in particular a persons fluid intelligence (natural
ability) and then by personality factors. McCrae (1987) also took a similar stance,
and was particularly fascinated by the Openness to Experience factor in
educational psychology as it is found to be modestly related to intelligence and
quite strongly related to divergent thinking (an ability characteristic of creativity).
Research into this area has consistently found some personality traits to be linked
with creativity performance. Feists (1998) meta-analysis of the literature found
that creative people tended to be more autonomous, introverted, open to new
experiences, norm-doubting, self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious,
dominant, hostile and impulsive (p. 299). Certain traits were related negatively
to creative scientists such as conscientiousness, conventionality, and close-
mindedness.With respect to the Big Five factors of personality, there have been some
interesting findings and correlates of creativity and creative output: The factor that
is most powerfully and consistently positively linked with creativity is Openness
to Experience (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004a, 2004b). McCrae & Costa
(1997) characterized open personalities as intrinsically artistic. Rawlings, Twomey,
Burns, and Morris (1998) found a relationship between creativity, openness
to experience and psychoticism. By definition Openness to Experience is the
proactive seeking and appreciation of experience for its own sake, and tolerance
for an exploration of the unfamiliar (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and is also described
as the willingness to try out new ideas, to explore, and to be curious about ones
inner ideas and the outside world. Rawlings, Twomey, Burns and Morris (1998)
found in their longitudinal study that Openness to Experience measured during
college was the best predictor of life course creativity 45 years later. However,
there have been some cases where the positive link between creativity and
Openness to Experience have not been found (Martindale & Dailey, 1996).
The other big five traits are not clearly related to creativity (Richardson,
1995). Gotz and Gotz (1979) discovered a negative relationship between the
factor of Neuroticism and scientific creativity but a positive relationship with
artistic creativity. Other studies have found no relationship between the two
(Eysenck & Furnham, 1993; Martindale & Dailey, 1996; McCrae, 1987). Thus
the connection between these two factors is greatly contested with no real
consistent pattern found, and it can only be concluded for the purposes of this
study that Neuroticism and creativity are not significantly related, though
Psychoticism is (Eysenck, 1995).
McCrae (1987) found a positive correlation between Conscientiousness andcreativity on self-report measures of the construct. He reasoned that Conscientious
people tend to invest more effort into pursuing creative activities than less
Conscientious people. However, it should be noted that creativity was measured
through self-report measures, rather than actual results of a creativity test. The
results that indicate a positive relationship with Conscientiousness may be more
SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 123
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
6/28
applicable to self-estimates of creativity (SEC) rather than actual creativity itself.
King, McKee, Walker, & Broyles (1996) tested McCraes hypothesis again
and found the opposite result, that Conscientiousness was in fact negatively
significantly correlated with creativity, a pattern that was also alluded to by Feists
(1998) meta-analysis of the literature.
SEC AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CREATIVITYAND PERSONALITY
There appear to be very few studies on self-estimated, as opposed to, other-
related or psychometrically assessed creativity. Furnham (1999) asked students to
complete three estimates of their own creativity along with both a measure of
the Big Five (NEO) and a creativity test (Barron Welsh Art Scale). He foundpersonality unrelated to psychometrically assessed intelligence. However,
Openness was correlated with all three measures of self-estimated creativity. In
this study we shall pursue research on the relationship between self-estimated
and psychometric creativity as well as personality and intelligence.
This study will address whether, by extending the same reasoning used for
the personality, SEI and intelligence relationship, a similar pattern can be found
for creative performance (as measured by the Barron-Welsh Art Scale) and
SEC (self-estimation of creativity). Although, there has been little investigation
into SEC it is possible that personality would also affect an individuals
self-estimation of their own creative abilities, just as it does for intellectual
abilities. Thus it is quite conceivable that a person with low self-esteem would give
themselves both low SEI and a low SEC. The evaluation of ones own creative
abilities would also no doubt have some impact on their creative output or at leasttheir desire to get involved with creative activities. Thus, SEC can conceivably
act as a mediator or moderator variable between personality and Creativity.
Personality variables such as confidence and modesty could also affect how
a person evaluates their own creative abilities and hence their SEC. It must be
noted that environmental factors such as actual academic or artistic performance
and also schooling and family attitudes toward creativity would also affect
self-evaluation of creative abilities. SEC, like SEI taps into many of Dwecks
(1999) self-theories and factors such as self-esteem, self-motivation, self-worth
which show that peoples beliefs about their own abilities are stable and can
affect performance, so ends up becoming self-fulfilling.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
Studies show that some of the Big Five personality traits are linked with
Academic Performance (AP), in particular Openness to Experience and
Conscientiousness (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a, 2003b; Digman &
Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Diseth, 2003; McCrae, 1987). Conscientiousness has
been found consistently to be a powerful predictor of AP (Barrick & Mount, 1993;
124 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
7/28
De Raad, 1996; Diseth, 2003; Goff & Ackerman, 1992) possibly due to routine
practices of studying and careful preparation for exams and assessments.
Musgrave-Marquart, Bromley, and Dalley (1997) investigated academic achieve-
ment (namely GPA) and personality and also found that Conscientiousness was
found to predict academic achievement as predicted.
McCrae, Costa, and Piedmont (1993) found that Openness to Experience
was also correlated with Goughs (1987) Achievement via Independence, a
factor predicting AP at college level. This positive correlation between Openness
to Experience and AP was replicated by Diseth (2003). Research into other
traits by Diseth (2003) and McCrae (1987) found that Agreeableness was
negatively correlated with Academic Performance, a conclusion that is logically
plausible when looking at the factors associated with Agreeableness, in
particular, modesty.McKenzie (1989) discovered that Extraversion was negatively correlated
with success in higher education but the relationship with anxiety was not so
clear. He suggested however, that there was indeed a link, and that an interaction
between neuroticism and high level of superego development (the Furneaux
factor) was positively linked to academic achievement. The negative correlation
with extraversion could be explained by the interpersonal and intrapersonal
skills of a person, a highly extraverted student would perhaps spend less time
studying and more time socializing or extracurricular activities than a less
extraverted student thus resulting in a negative correlation with school AP
(McCown & Johnson, 1991).
THIS STUDY
This longitudinal study will explore relationships between self-estimated and
psychometrically assessed personality, intelligence, and creativity and how these
eventually relate to university academic success. This study will investigate
whether the association between creativity and personality is also mediated by
SEC in the same way.
The hypotheses investigated in this study are:
H1: It is predicted that there will be a link between the Big Five Personality
Traits and Psychometric Creativity and in specifically that Openness to
Experience will yield a significant positive correlation with Creativity
(measured by the Barron Welsh).
H2: Openness to Experience will be significantly positively correlated with
Fluid Intelligence (measured by the Ravens and Baddeley tests).
H3: Fluid Intelligence (measured by the Ravens test) will be significantly
positively correlated with Creativity.
SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 125
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
8/28
H4: There will be a link between personality and SEI, specifically that
(a) Agreeableness and SEI will produce a significant negative correlation,
while (b) Extraversion and SEI will produce a positive correlation.
H5: Agreeableness will be significantly negatively correlated with SEC.
H6: There will be a significant positive correlation between general
intelligence and Academic Achievement, specifically that the Wonderlic
and Baddeley test scores will produce a significant positive correlation with
AP (mean exam results).
H7: Conscientiousness will produce a significant positive correlation
with AP.
H8: There will be a significant positive relationship between SEI andIntelligence. There will be significant positive correlations between: (a) the
Ravens scores and SEI Ravens, (b) the Wonderlic scores and SEI
Wonderlic, (c) the Baddeley test and SEI Baddeley.
H9: There will be a significant positive correlation between SEC and
Creativity (measured by the Barron-Welsh).
H10: Gender will be significantly correlated with (a) SEI a and (b) SECand
males will produce significantly higher SEI Ravens, SEI Wonderlic and
SEI Baddeley figures than females.
Figure 1 shows the predicted conceptual model created by combining H1-H10.
METHOD
Sample
Participants were sixty-four 3rd year psychology students from University
College London ranging in age from 20-55 years (in 2003) with 18 males and
46 females. They were all fluent in English but came from a variety of
backgrounds. This study uses psychometric test based personality and intelligence
data gathered from the participants in November 2001, data on self-estimated,
as well as psychometric creativity, and collected from the same participants
in December 2003.
Measures
This study uses a questionnaire design. The tests used in this study and their
corresponding variables measured are:
1. The NEO PI-R Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992)as a
measure of Big Five personality traits in a 240-item non-timed inventory:
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and
126 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
9/28
SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 127
Figure1
.Apredictedmodelo
ftheinteractionso
fvariablesinH
1-H
10
.
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
10/28
Conscientiousness. The inventory requires participants to indicate level of
agreementwith certain statements about ones typical reactions and behaviors on a
5-point Likert scale (1strongly disagree, 5strongly agree). This test has been
shown to be very valid and reliable.
2. The Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, Court, & Raven,
1983)as a non-verbal measure of pure fluid intelligence (gf). This 60-item test
measuring educative ability, a component of (gf) and is timed (20 mins). Each of
the items has a few figures, which are related by specific rules, but one figure is
missing. Participants must find the missing one among five similar figures, by
figuring out the rules of each set item. The 60 items are divided into five groups
(A, B, C, D, E) of 12 items that increases in level of difficulty. The manual
reports that studies on a wide range of age groups, cultural groups and clinical
as well as normal populations provide abundant evidence for the tests reliabilityand validity (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1983).
3. The Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) (Wonderlic, 1992)as a measure
of general intelligence. It is a 50-item test, can be administered in 12 mins. and
scores can range from 0-50. Items include word and number comparisons,
disarranged sentences, serial analysis of geometric figures and story problems
that require mathematical and logical solutions. The test has been used in various
studies investigating intellectual ability and is shown to be very reliable.
4. The Baddeley Reasoning Test (BRT) (Baddeley, 1968)as a measure of
general and fluid intelligence (gf) through logical reasoning. This is a 60-item
test with scores ranging from 0-60 and is taken in 3 minutes. Each item is a
grammatical transformation where participants only need to answer whether
the transformation comparison is true or false. This tests reliability and validity
are high and has been used in a number of studies for quickly measuring
intellectual ability.
5. The Barron-Welsh Art Scale (Barron & Welsh, 1952)as a measure of
creativity. This scale consists of 86 different black and white pictures arranged
numbered to 8 pictures per page. Participants are instructed to make quick,
instinctive, dichotomous judgments about whether they like/dislike each picture.
They fill an L for like or a D for dislike for the number corresponding to the picture
they are judging on the answer sheet provided. This test requires no language
skills (Welsh, 1987).
6. The Self-Estimates of Intelligence (SEI) Questionnaire (Furnham, 2001)
this was developed using Gardner (1983, 1993) multiple intelligences and asks
participants to rate their own overall intelligence and also rate themselves on
each of the multiple intelligences on a standardized scale where 100 is theaverage rating.
7. The Self-Estimates of Creativity (SEC) Questionnaire (Furnham, 2000)
adapted from the SEI for creativity instead of intelligence. All items are the same
as the SEI questionnaire, except that in all places, intelligence is replaced with
creativity. There are thus seven types of creativity that require rating (i.e.,
128 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
11/28
verbal, spatial, etc.) as well as an overall scale. Participants were shown a normal
distribution with standard deviations described and asked to give their overall
estimated score as well as estimates on the multiple creativity types. For the
purpose of this study only the overall measure was used.
8. Mean End-of-Year Exams Resultsthese were used as a measure of
Academic Performance (AP). All students took part in 6 two-hour exams at the
end of each year2001 and 2002. The exam subjects were from the courses
and literature students had been studying that year and answered in the form
of essays (3 essays per exam) and these were graded by the UCL exam board
and each paper was graded out of 100. The average exam mark used as the
measure of academic achievement was the calculated mean between the 2001
final exam mark and 2002 final exam mark.
Procedure
Participants completed the personality and intelligence tests soon after starting
university. Three months later they estimated their own intelligence. A year
later they completed the creativity test and estimated their creativity scores.
All data were matched to academic exam output over a two year period. Hence
this study was a 2-year longitudinal study. Participants received feedback on
each of the tests that they completed.
1. Correlations
Pearsons Correlation Coefficients were calculated for allmeasuresin this studyand significant figures are in bold (see Table 1).
H1: The results above show that Creativity is significantly positively
correlated with Openness to Experience (r= .31, p = .01). Also,
Conscientiousness was found to be significantly negatively correlated with
Creativity with (r= .28, p < .03).
H2: As for intelligence and personality, Openness to Experience was again
significantly correlated with the Ravens scores which measure pure
fluid intelligence (r= .27, p = 0.05), but not with the Wonderlic or the
Baddeleys scores which both contain measures of general intelligence.
H3: There was no significant correlation between creativity scores and anyof the three intelligence tests.
H4: Conscientiousness and SEI Baddeley produced a significant positive
correlation. However, SEI Ravens and SEI Wonderlic did not achieve
any significant correlations with any of the Big Five Personality Factors.
SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 129
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
12/28
H5: One trait in the Big Five Personality group was indeed found to predict
SEC, this was Conscientiousness which yielded a significant positive
correlation ofr= .30, p < .01.
H6: The results show that there was a significant positive correlation
between AP and the Baddeley Reasoning Test scores measuring general and
fluid intelligence (r= .29, p < .019). However, the Ravens and Wonderlic
scores did not significantly correlate with AP.
130 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC
Table 1. Pearson's Correlation Coefficients between All Relevant
Factors and Indications of Significance
Ravens Wonderlic Baddeley Creativity AP
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
SEI Ravens
SEI Wonderlic
SEI Baddeley
SEC
AP
Creativity
Gender
.08
.09
.27*
.20
.03
.29*
.31*
.25*
.22
.04
.17
.13
.09
.02
.20
.02
.24
.47**
.32*
.22
.14
.13
.09
.03
.06
.10
.01
.06
.20
.32*
.29*
.13
.01
.07
.05
.31*
.12
.28*
.27*
.21
.14
.04
.05
.15
.04
.40**
SEI-
Raven
SEI-
Wonderlic
SEI-
Baddeley SEC
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Gender
.15
.14
.15
.04
.15
.10
.14
.03
.00
.01
.09
.12
.22
.12
.04
.10
.28*
.33**
.17
.05
.24
.07
.30*
.27*
Note: AP = Academic Performance, SEI = Self-Estimated Intelligence, SEC = Self-Estimated Creativity.
*Significant at the
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
13/28
H7: Conscientiousness was the only Big Five Personality Trait to be linked
with AP. It yielded a very significant positive correlation with AP (r= .40,
p < .001).
H8: There were highly significant results obtained in this section of the
model. The SEI Ravens and the Ravens scores were significantly positively
correlated (r.= .29, p < .02). The SEI Wonderlic and the Wonderlic scores
were also very significantly positively correlated (r= .47,p < .001). The SEI
Baddeley and the Baddeley scores were significantly positively correlated
(r= .32, p < .01). There were also some interesting cross-test correlations
concerning intelligence and SEI, as the Ravens score was significantly
positively correlated with SEI Wonderlic (r= .31, p < .01) and SEI
Baddeley (r= .25, p < .05). The Wonderlic scores and SEI Baddeleytogether yielded a significant positive correlation.
H9: The results show that Creativity as measured by the Barron Welsh
Scale was significantly and positively correlated with SEC(r= .27,p < .05).
H10: Gender and SEC yielded a significant negative correlation in this
study with males having higher estimates of creativity than females
(r= .27, p < .05). Gender and SEI Baddeley produced a highly significant
positive correlation r= .36, p < .01), whereas SEI Ravens and SEI
Wonderlic were both not significantly correlated with gender.
2. Multiple Regressions
Multiple regressions were conducted on the factors that produced significantcorrelations to investigate whether these relationships were predictive. It also
allowed further analysis on different models that included whether several
independent factors would predict a single dependent variable. Table 2 shows the
beta and tfigures and significant b values are in bold.
H1: The first regression model investigated whether personality as a whole
(of Big Five Factors) was found to significantly predict Creativity. Results
showed that this model did predict Creativity (F(5, 58) = 2.50, p < .05) and
10.6% of the variance in Creativity scores was accounted for by personality
variables. Openness to Experience was the only significant factor in this
model (b = .32, p < .01), although Conscientiousness was almost negatively
significant to creativity (b = .26, p < .05).
H2: In this regression, personality as a whole did not predict Ravens scores
(F(5, 58) = 1.39, p < .23), despite the fact that Openness to Experience did
yield a significant b coefficient of .28, p < .04. Results showed that
Wonderlic and Baddeley scores were not predicted by personality as a
whole or by any of its parts.
SELF-ESTIMATED INTELLIGENCE / 131
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
14/28
Table
2.
SimultaneousMultipleRegressions
forRelevantFactorsIdentifiedbythe
Correlationswithb
andtValues
Ravens
Wonderlic
Baddeley
Creativity
AP
b
t
b
t
b
t
b
t
b
t
N E O A C
.0
6
.0
9.28*
.17
.06
.3
8
.5
8
2.0
6
1.2
4.4
3
.1
3.0
6.0
1
.0
5
.0
3
.8
0.4
0.0
8
.3
4
.1
9
.1
4
.1
7.0
9.1
3
.0
4
.9
1
1
.07
.64
.93
.2
8
.1
0
.2
0.3
2*
.0
8
.2
5
.6
7
1
.41
2.4
6.5
9
1
.95
.14
.0
2
.0
9.0
9.43**
1.0
1
.1
1
.7
3.6
9
3.3
0
Regmodel
Adj.R
2
F(5,58)=
1.39
.03
F(5
,58)=
2.50*
.11
F(5,58)=
2.60*
.11
SEIR
SEIW
SEIB
SEC
.29*
2.2
7
.47**
4.2
3
.32*
2.6
1
.265*
2.1
6
Regmodel
Adj.R
2
F(1,62)=
5.63*
.07
F(1,62)=1
7.92*
.21
F(1,62)=
6.83*
.09
F(1
,62)=
4.67*
.06
AP
.29*
2.4
1
.211
1
.70
Regmodel
Adj.R
2
F(1,62)=
5.82*
.07
132 / FURNHAM, ZHANG AND CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC
7/30/2019 The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence
15/28
SEIRavens
SEIWonderlic
SEIBadde
ley
SEC
b
t
b
t
b
t
b
t
N E O A C
.0
8.0
8.1
7
.0
4.1
5
.5
2.4
9
1.2
2
.2
7
1.1
0
.13
.01 .02
.03 .05
.8
4
.0
7.1
7
.2
1.3
3
.2
5
.2
1.0
9
.1
0.2
1
1
.76
1
.46
.69
.7
4
1.6
0
.1
1
.0
4.33*
.1
4.32*
.7
8
.2
6
2.6
0
1
.10
2.4
4
Regmodel
Adj.R
2
F(5,58)=
2.83*
.13
Gender
.1
0
.7
7
.12
.9
7
.33**
2
.72
.27*
2
.25
Regmodel
Adj.R
2
F(1,62)=7.38**
.09
F(1,62)=
5.05*
.06
*Sign
ificant
atthe