Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-3
A General Theoretical Integrative Model of Individual Differences in Interests,Abilities,Personality Traits,and Academic and Occupational Achievement: A Commentary on Four Recent Articles
This commentary integrates the contents of four recent articles on individual differences (Nye, Su, Rounds, & Drasgow, 2012; Schmidt, 2011; Valla & Ceci, 2011; von Stumm, Hell, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011) in a causal theoretical model. In this model, introversion and fluid intelligence cause interest in general learning (intellectual curiosity), which in turn is a major cause of crystallized intelligence. Certain specific interests and fluid intelligence also contribute to crystallized intelligence. Prenatal testosterone hormone conditioning is postulated to cause sex differences in certain specific interests but not in others. Crystallized intelligence, specific interests, and the personality trait of conscientiousness cause adult academic and occupational performance, whereas crystallized intelligence is the main cause of good mental functioning at older ages. Research is presented supporting each link in the model.
AckermanP. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.
2.
AckermanP. L. (1999). Traits and knowledge as determinants of learning and individual differences: Putting it all together. In AckermanP.KyllonenP.RobertsR. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 437–462). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
AckermanP. L.HeggestadE. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
4.
BouchardT. J.Jr. (1997a). Genetic influences on mental abilities, personality, vocational interests, and work attitudes. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 373–395.
5.
BouchardT. J.Jr. (1997b). The genetics of personality. In BlumK.NobleE. P. (Eds.), Handbook of psychiatric genetics (pp. 273–296). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
6.
BouchardT. J.Jr.McGueM. (1981). Familial studies of intelligence: A review. Science, 212, 1055–1059.
7.
CattellR. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
CattellR. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. New York, NY: North Holland.
9.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M.BarnettS. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261.
10.
FineC. (2010a). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
11.
FineC. (2010b). From scanner to sound bite: Issues in interpreting and reporting sex differences in the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 280–283.
12.
GoffM.AckermanP. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537–552.
13.
GoldbergE. (2005). The wisdom paradox: How your mind can grow stronger as your brain grows older. New York, NY: Gotham Books.
14.
HoldenC. (1987). The genetics of personality. Science, 237, 598–601.
15.
HollandJ. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
16.
HollandJ. L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typology. American Psychologist, 51, 397–406.
17.
NyeC.SuR.RoundsJ.DrasgowF. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 384–483.
18.
PlominR.BergmanC. S. (1991). Nature and nurture: Genetic influences on “environmental” measures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 14, 373–427.
19.
PostlethwaiteB. E. (2011). Fluid ability, crystallized ability, and performance across multiple domains: A meta-analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Iowa, Iowa City.
20.
RosnowskiM. (1987). Use of tests manifesting sex differences as measures of intelligence: Implications for measurement bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 480–483.
21.
ScarrS. (1996). How people make their own environments: Implications for parents and policy makers. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 204–228.
22.
ScarrS.McCartneyK. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype—Environmental effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435.
23.
SchmidtF. L. (2011). A theory of sex differences in technical aptitude and some supporting evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 560–563. doi:10.1177/1745691611419670
24.
SchmidtF. L.ShafferJ. A.OhI.-S. (2008). Increased accuracy for range restriction corrections: Implications for the role of personality and general mental ability in job and training performance. Personnel Psychology, 61, 827–868.
25.
SuR.RoundsJ.ArmstrongP. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884.
26.
VallaJ. M.CeciS. J. (2011). Can sex differences in science be tied to the long reach of prenatal harmones? Brain organization theory, digit ratio (2D/4D), and sex differences in preferences and cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 134–146. doi:10.1177/1745691611400236
27.
von StummS.HellB.Chamorro-PremuzicT. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 574–588. doi:10.1177/1745691611421204
