See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238712264

Cognitive ability, learning approaches and personality correlates of general

knowledge

Article  in  Educational Psychology · July 2008

DOI: 10.1080/01443410701727376

CITATIONS READS
33 565

3 authors:

Adrian Furnham Viren Swami

University of London Anglia Ruskin University
1,625 PUBLICATIONS   69,831 CITATIONS    405 PUBLICATIONS   12,859 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adriane Arteche
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
67 PUBLICATIONS   2,231 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Psychology of financial behaviour View project

Psychology in Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Viren Swami on 14 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This article was downloaded by:[University College London]
On: 14 July 2008
Access Details: [subscription number 772858957]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychology
An International Journal of Experimental
Educational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415498
Cognitive ability, learning approaches and personality
correlates of general knowledge
Adrian Furnham a; Viren Swami b; Adriane Arteche c; Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic c
a
Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK
b
University of Westminster, United Kingdom
c
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, University of London, London, UK

First Published: July 2008

To cite this Article: Furnham, Adrian, Swami, Viren, Arteche, Adriane and
Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas (2008) 'Cognitive ability, learning approaches and personality correlates of general
knowledge', Educational Psychology, 28:4, 427 — 437
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/01443410701727376
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410701727376

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
 Educational Psychology
Vol. 28, No. 4, July 2008, 427–437
Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

Cognitive ability, learning approaches and personality correlates of general

knowledge
Adrian Furnhama, Viren Swamib, Adriane Artechec and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzicc*
aDepartment of Psychology, University College London, London, UK; bUniversity of Westminster, United
Kingdom; cDepartment of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, University of London, London, UK
(Received 5 July 2007; final version received 3 October 2007)
Taylor and Francis
CEDP_A_272654.sgm

The relationship between general knowledge (GK) and cognitive ability (IQ and abstract
Educational
10.1080/01443410701727376
0144-3410
Original
Taylor
02008
00
Dr.
t.chamorro-premuzic@gold.ac.uk
000002008
TomasChamorro-Premuzic
&Article
Francis
(print)/1469-5820
Psychology (online)

reasoning), learning approaches, and personality (‘big five’ traits and typical intellectual
engagement) was investigated in a sample of 101 British undergraduates. As predicted, GK
was positively correlated with cognitive ability (more so with IQ than with abstract
reasoning), typical intellectual engagement, and openness to experience. A hierarchical
regression showed that IQ was the strongest predictor of GK, explaining 26% of GK variance.
However, openness (15%) added incremental validity to the variance explained. These results
are discussed in relation to previous findings in the field of GK and the personality–
intelligence interface.
Keywords: general knowledge; cognitive ability; leaning approaches; personality

In the past decade, the role of general knowledge (GK) in the measurement of intelligence has
become increasingly prominent, especially within cognitive psychology (e.g., Ackerman,
Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; East & Forgas, 2002; Hambrick & Engle, 2002; Mariani, Sacco,
Spinnler, & Venneri, 2002) and differential psychology (e.g., Beier & Ackerman, 2001;
Furnham, Christopher, Garwood, & Martin, 2007; Irwing, Cammock, & Lynn, 2001; Lynn &
Irwing, 2002).
This interest in GK appears to mirror the theoretical position that an individual’s fluid abilities
(gf) – that is, those aspects of intelligence related to abstract reasoning and non-verbal problem-
solving – become, with increasing age, less important predictors of achievement than her or his
crystallised intelligence (gc) – which refers to content-based abilities that are affected by learning
experiences (Ackerman, 1994; Ackerman et al., 2001; Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, &
McDougall, 2003).
Despite the interest in GK, including its relationship with intelligence in applied and educa-
tional settings (e.g., Vernon, 1950, 1969), the importance of GK as a component of intelligence
remains in dispute. Partly, this stems from the fact that researchers have not always used the same
label to refer to the same concept (Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Ackerman, 2006). Thus, for
example, some attempts to establish a hierarchy of mental ability refer to GK, but most refer to
the concept of gc (Carroll, 1993; Cattell, 1967, 1971/1987), whereby gc is considered to be a
broad mental ability resulting from the investment of fluid ability in particular educational or
experiential experiences. Thus, some authors have suggested that it is possible, through
education, to increase one’s intelligence: Stanovich (1994, 2000) proposed that reading increases
intelligence, while Ceci (1991) reviewed the evidence for quality and quantity of schooling being

*Corresponding author. Email: t.chamorro-premuzic@gold.ac.uk

ISSN 0144-3410 print/ISSN 1469-5820 online

© 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01443410701727376
http://www.informaworld.com
 428 A. Furnham et al.

the major environmental influence on intelligence. In addition, Kline (1991) proposed that level
of intellectual investment is not only dependent on reasoning or learning ability, but also on an
Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

individual’s personality traits.

Ackerman (1996, 1999) examined the relationship between gc and GK in his model of
intelligence as processes, personality, interests, and knowledge (PPIK). In Ackerman’s (1996,
1999) view, gf can best be understood in terms of processes and measured through abstract
reasoning, whereas gc is represented by knowledge and is defined by recognition and recall of
declarative facts and procedural skills. Consequently, recent work on PPIK has suggested that
individual differences in domain-specific knowledge and GK are more strongly predicted by
gc than gf. Moreover, ‘investment’ personality traits, such as the ‘big five’ factor of openness
to experience and typical intellectual engagement (TIE; a self-report trait that assesses an indi-
vidual’s approach to, interest in, and curiosity about aspects of knowledge), are associated
with GK to the extent that these variables reflect the level of an individual’s intellectual orien-
tation (Ackerman et al., 2001; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2006; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1996,
1999).
Building on this work, Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004, 2005) argued that some
personality traits (notably conscientiousness positively, and neuroticism and extraversion nega-
tively) play an important role in determining an individual’s academic achievement. This is in
line with their view that intellectual competence is multi-determined by an array of ability and
non-ability traits. Based on this model, Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic (2005) and Chamorro-
Premuzic et al. (2006) predicted, and found, a positive association between openness to
experience and GK. The associations between other ‘big five’ factors and GK have been more
variable, with Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic (2005) reporting a positive association between
conscientiousness and GK, and Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2006) reporting a negative association
between GK and neuroticism and extraversion.
More recently, Furnham et al. (2007) looked at personality and learning style predictors of
GK in a large population from different universities. They found openness and low surface learn-
ing strategy to be the best predictors of GK, accounting for about 12% of the variance. They
argued that a surface learning style results in a pragmatic, instrumental, extrinsic motivational
style that does not lead to the development of GK. On the other hand, openness is related to
curiosity and a life of the mind, and is clearly related to the development of GK.
In the present study, we sought to replicate previous work by examining the relative efficacy
of IQ, abstract reasoning, and personality (big five facets and TIE) in predicting variance in GK.
However, we also extended previous work by including a measure of learning approaches, which
is known to be an important determinant of academic performance and knowledge acquisition
(Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Lewis, 2007; Duff, 2003; Duff, Boyle, & Dunleavy, 2004). In
early work, Biggs (1987, 1992) identified three major learning approaches: ‘deep’ (characterised
by intrinsic motivation, engagement with the subject matter, and desire to know everything about
a given topic), ‘surface’ (low interest in the task per se, but with an aim of learning the minimum
amount of material required), and ‘achieving’ (characterised by goal-oriented study strategies,
pragmatism, and inspiration from results). Each of these approaches can be further broken down
into two components: learning motive (why students learn) and learning strategy (how they
learn).
Based on previous theoretical (Ackerman, 1996, 1999; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2004, 2005) and empirical work (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2006; Furnham & Chamorro-
Premuzic, 2005), we formulated a number of hypotheses:
H1: GK would be significantly and positively correlated with abstract reasoning and IQ, although
the relationship would be stronger for the latter than the former as IQ (like GK) includes items
that measure gc, while abstract reasoning is a measure of gf.
 Educational Psychology 429

H2. There would be a significant and positive association between GK and TIE, which is
consistent with the position that personality traits determine an individual’s level of
Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

investment and effort in the acquisition of skills, knowledge, and information.

H3: Openness to experience would be significantly and positively correlated with GK,
reflecting open individuals’ greater interest and investment in knowledge.
H4: Learning approaches would show significant correlations with GK, because of its
consistent associations with the big five personality factors (that is, to the extent that
personality facets are associated with GK, one might also expect learning approaches to
show significant association).
H5: While IQ would be the most important predictor of GK, learning approaches and
personality (big five facets) would show incremental validity in the prediction of GK.

Method
Participants
The 101 participants in this study (78 women, 23 men) were undergraduate psychology students
from a British university. Participant age ranged from 17 to 46 years, with a mean of 19.46 years
(SD = 4.33). All participants provided answers to paper-and-pencil psychometric tests during
their first academic year. Data collection was carried out in group sessions and supervised by
experimenters.

Measures
Participants completed two cognitive abilities measures, one learning approach scale, one self-
report inventory assessing personality traits, and one intellectual engagement scale. Each of these
measures is described below.

General knowledge test

This is a 72-item questionnaire (Irwing et al., 2001) that measures knowledge of six different
domains: literature, general science, medicine, games, fashion, and finance. It has been reported
to correlate with general intelligence in the order of r = .40 to .60.

Wonderlic personnel test

The WPT is a 50-item test (Wonderlic, 1992) administered in 12 minutes. It measures both
crystallised and fluid intelligence, providing a quick and reliable measure of IQ. Scores can
range from 0 to 50. Questions include word and number comparisons, disarranged sentences,
serial analysis of geometric figures, and story problems that require logical solutions. The test
has a high correlation (r = .92) with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (Wechsler,
1991).

Baddeley reasoning test

The BRT is a 60-item test (Baddeley, 1968) administered in three minutes, which measures fluid
intelligence through logical reasoning. Scores range from 0 to 64. Each item is presented in the
form of a grammatical transformation that is answered with either ‘true’ or ‘false’. For example,
‘A precedes B – AB’ is true, while ‘A does not follow B – BA’ is false. The test has been reported
as a reliable indicator of intellectual ability (Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutafi, 2005;
Hammerton, 1969).
 430 A. Furnham et al.

Study process questionnaire

Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

The SPQ (Biggs, 1987; Fox, McManus, & Winder, 2001) is used to assess three major approaches
to learning: surface, deep, and achieving approaches. In its original form, the SPQ comprises
42 items (seven items per factor). The abbreviated version of the SPQ used in the present study
consisted of 18 items (three for each factor) and also assessed three second-order shared indicator
factors – surface (SPQ-S), deep (SPQ-D), achieving (SPQ-A) – and one higher-order deep-
achieving factor similar to that proposed by Biggs (1987). Participants responded on a five-point
Likert-type scale. Psychometric information on the reliability and validity of the SPQ has been
reported in previous studies (Biggs, 1987, 1992; Fox et al., 2001; Zhang, 2000, 2004).

Neuroticism-extraversion-openness five factor inventory

The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 60-item, self-report version of the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and assesses the five major dimensions of personality: neurot-
icism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Participants
responded to a series of statements about their typical behaviour or reactions, using a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Several studies have
provided support for the reliability and validity of the measure (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2005; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Matthews & Deary, 1998). In the present sample,
α ranged from .64 to .85.

Typical intellectual engagement scale

The TIE is a 59-item, self-report inventory that assesses the extent to which a participant seeks,
engages, and enjoys intellectual activities such as reading philosophy, studying, solving difficult
mental problems, and thinking about several aspects of life. Participants respond on a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The typical internal
consistency reported for the TIE in previous researches is α = .85 (Ackerman, 2000; Ackerman
et al., 2001; Ackerman, Kanfer, & Goff, 1995; Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999). In the present
sample, the reliability coefficient was .91.

Results
We initially computed a series of bivariate correlations between GK, cognitive abilities (IQ and
abstract reasoning), learning approaches, TIE, and the big five personality traits. Descriptive
statistics are reported in Table 1. All α values were higher than .64, and consistent with scores
reported for the same instruments in previous studies.
There were a number of significant correlations among the tested measures. As predicted,
GK was correlated with ability measures: the General Knowledge Test was correlated with
the BRT, but more positively correlated with the WPT, which supports our prediction that GK
is more strongly correlated with IQ than with abstract reasoning (H1). GK was also signifi-
cantly correlated with TIE and with openness, supporting H2 and H3, respectively. Partly
supporting H4, personality and TIE, but not learning approaches, correlated significantly with
GK.
The results also showed that TIE was positively correlated with SPQ-A and with SPQ-D, and
negatively correlated with SPQ-S, supporting the association between engagement in intellectual
activities and learning strategies. TIE was also positively correlated with openness and conscien-
tiousness. Finally, personality traits and learning strategies also showed significant associations.
Conscientiousness was positively related with SPQ-A and SPQ-D; openness was positively
 Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

Table 1. Pearson correlation coefficients between all measures.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 GK (α = .74) .54** 32** .22* .06 .02 −.12 .11 .09 .40** .01 .08
Cognitive abilities
2 WPT (α = .88) .46** −.06 −.11 −.16 −.16 −.01 −.06 .07 .02 .03
R = 14 to 41, M = 25.60, SD = 5.65
3 BRT (α = .83) .07 −.07 .02 −.16 .07 −.14 .13 −.05 −.13
R = 2 to 64, M = 34.53, SD = 14.50
Intellectual investment
4 TIE (α = .91) .26** .70** −.33** −.15 .18 .66** .12 .27**
R = 167 to 316, M = 238, SD = 29.62
Learning strategies
5 SPQ-A (α = .78) .29** .31** .07 .16 −.10 .05 .64**
R = 27 to 62, M = 45.74, SD = 7.78
6 SPQ-D (α = .81) −.21* −.16 .09 .40** .04 .21*
R = 25 to 68, M = 46.10, SD = 8.32
7 SPQ-S (α = .79) .22* .03 −.33** −.12 .03
R = 28 to 61, M = 44.14, SD = 6.97
Personality traits
8 Neuroticism (α = .85 ) −.31** −.08 −.07 .01
R = 20 to 56, M = 35.45, SD = 7.69
9 Extraversion (α = .68) .24* −.01 .23*
R = 31 to 53, M = 41.96, SD = 5.10
10 Openness (α = .77) .22* .10
Educational Psychology

R = 29 to 57, M = 41.82, SD = 6.25

431
 Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

Table 1. (Continued).
432

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

11 Agreeableness (α = .64) .28**

R = 32 to 52, M = 42.13, SD = 4.94
12 Conscientiousness (α = .83)
R = 24 to 53, M = 41.74, SD = 5.97
A. Furnham et al.

Note: n varied from 97 to 101. *p < .05; **p < .01; α = Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency scale); R = range; GK = general knowledge; WPT = Wonderlic Personnel Test; BRT =
Baddeley Reasoning Test; TIE = typical intellectual engagement; SPQ-A = Study Process Questionnaire – achieving; SPQ-D = Study Process Questionnaire – deep; SPQ-S=Study
Process Questionnaire – surface.
 Educational Psychology 433

correlated with SPQ-D and negatively associated with SPQ-S; and neuroticism was positively
correlated to SPS-S.
Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

Finally, hierarchical regressions were performed in order to test the assessed variables as
predictors of GK. First, a stepwise hierarchical regression was conducted considering all cognitive
abilities, learning approaches, TIE, and personality traits as possible predictors of GK. Once learn-
ing approaches, neuroticism, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness had evidenced
low validity as GK predictors, they were excluded from the final set of analysis. Although BRT
score and TIE were not significant predictors of GK either (which indicates that their associations
with GK were fully accounted for by WPT and openness, respectively), they were kept, using the
force-entry method, in the second analysis in order to inspect standardised beta coefficients as well
as the unique contribution of openness and WPT to the model (see Table 2).
In the first regression of the second set of analysis, BRT was a significant predictor of GK (β
= .33; t = 3.47, p < .01) and accounted for 10% of the variance. The percentage of variance
accounted for increased to 29% in the second step of the analysis. WPT (β = .49; t = 5.12, p < .01)
accounted for 19% of the unique variance in GK, revealing the importance of both gc and gf as
predictors of GK. As expected, when WPT was entered in the model, BRT was no longer a signif-
icant predictor. When TIE was added to the model, it was also a significant predictor (β = .25; t
= 3.01, p < .01), accounting for 6% of the variance. WPT (β = .52; t = 5.59, p < .01) was again
the most significant predictor. In the final step of the regression, openness (β = .35; t = 3.28, p <
.01) was added to the predictors and it increased the explained variance by 7%. TIE was not a
significant a predictor. Although TIE and openness are different constructs, this result shows that

Table 2. Hierarchical regressions for the prediction of general knowledge.

General knowledge

β t
1 BRT .33 3.47**
Model F(1,95) = 12.05**
Adj. R2 = .10; R = .33;
R2 change = .11
2 BRT .10 1.09
WPT .49 5.12**
Model F(2,94) = 20.76**
Adj. R2 = .29; R = .55
R2 change = .19
3 BRT .06 0.70
WPT .52 5.59**
TIE .25 3.01**
Model F(3,93) = 18.05**
Adj. R2 = .34; R = .60
R2 change = .06
4 BRT .06 0.70
WPT .48 5.44**
TIE .01 0.09
Openness .35 3.28**
Model F(4,92) = 17.66**
Adj. R2 = .41; R = .65
R2 change = .06

Note: n = 93; **p < .01; WPT = Wonderlich Personnel Test; BRT = Baddeley Reasoning Test; TIE = typical intellectual
engagement.
 434 A. Furnham et al.

both variables share one component, which, for instance, predicts GK. However, openness seems
to explain this common factor better.
Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

Discussion
The results of this study replicated previous findings in showing that:
(1) GK was positively correlated with abstract reasoning and IQ, with the relationship being
stronger for IQ than it was for abstract reasoning.
(2) GK was positively correlated with TIE.
(3) GK was positively correlated with openness to experiences.

These results are considered in turn.

The relationship between GK and ability factors, such that IQ was a more important predictor
of GK than abstract reasoning, provides support for a two-factor theory of intelligence. This
position, first suggested by Cattell (1971/1987), differentiates between gc and gf and, more
specifically in relation to the present study, conceptualises GK as a major component of gc. More
generally, these findings support the hypothesis that GK, like other crystallised abilities, results
from the application of fluid abilities over time (Ackerman, 1994; Ackerman et al., 2001; Furnham
et al., 2003). In fact, the modest correlation between GK and gf suggests that investment traits
play a key moderational role in the passage from gf to GK. Thus, gf certainly helps individuals to
acquire knowledge and learn facts, but personality traits appear to play a more important role in
this process, thus supporting H5.
Accordingly, the results showed that TIE was significantly correlated with GK, although it
did not emerge as a significant predictor of GK in the regression analyses, as the common vari-
ance between TIE and GK was fully explained by openness to experience. Nevertheless, the
correlational analyses support the conclusions of Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2006), who
suggested that individual differences in TIE partly determine the level of knowledge acquisition.
Specifically, individuals high in TIE tend to be more intellectually curious and driven, which
probably results in improved GK. Moreover, TIE was significantly associated with openness and
conscientiousness, which corroborates previous findings (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2006; Goff
& Ackerman, 1992). Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004) have suggested that these associ-
ations, particularly between TIE and conscientiousness, may develop to compensate for lower gf
in challenging educational and work settings.
The big five factor openness to experience was significantly associated with GK, explaining
15% of the variance in the latter. This, too, is consistent with previous work (Chamorro-Premuzic
et al., 2006; Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005) and generally supports the notion that
personality traits are related to intelligence, especially its crystallised aspects (e.g., McCrae, 1993,
1994). Specifically, the present associations suggest that open individuals may be more likely to
invest in intellectual activities, which eventually result in increased gc (Ackerman & Goff, 1994;
Ackerman & Heggestad; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004). On the other hand, the present
study did not reveal significant associations between GK and neuroticism or conscientiousness,
although it should be pointed out that previous studies have also been equivocal in this regard.
In general, this set of results supports the theoretical models developed by Ackerman (1996,
1999) and Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2004, 2005), which suggest that non-ability traits
have significant effects on the acquisition of skills and knowledge. More generally, they are in
line with conceptualisations of intelligence (Ceci, 1991; Stanovich, 1994) that highlight the
impact of learning and cultural experiences on the development of intelligence. When crystallised
abilities are considered, intelligence seems to have an important incremental or developmental
aspect which sets it apart from the more biological or entity-like fluid abilities.
 Educational Psychology 435

The main limitation of this study concerns the representativeness of the sample, which
comprised mainly female British undergraduates. As such, it is not possible to generalise these
Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

findings to other samples, which may differ in cognitive ability, personality dimensions, and even
GK. Future studies would, therefore, do well to include more representative and larger samples,
and possibly also samples from different national settings. Such studies may also find it useful to
include tests that more clearly measure gf and gc, such as those developed by Beier and Ackerman
(2001).
In conclusion, the present results add to a growing body of work showing an association
between GK and gc. Although these results are important, they will remain mostly speculative
unless future studies can validate the hypothesised association between GK and real-life
outcomes such as educational attainment or job performance. Certainly, there is some evidence
of an association between GK and individual difference variables (Ackerman, 1996; Lynn &
Irwing, 2002), but there remains much scope for future work in this field.

Acknowledgements
The first author was supported by a Nuffield Foundation Social Science Grant, the third author
by a CAPES scholarship from the Brazilian Government, and the fourth author by a British
Academy grant.

References
Ackerman, P.L. (1994). Intelligence, attention, and learning: Maximal and typical performance. In D.K.
Detterman (Ed.), Current topics in human intelligence: Volume 4. Theories of intelligence (pp. 1–27).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ackerman, P.L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and
knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.
Ackerman, P.L. (1999). Traits and knowledge as determinants of learning and individual differences:
Putting it all together. In P.L. Ackerman, P.C. Kyllonen, & R. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual
differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 437–462). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of
Technology.
Ackerman, P.L. (2000). Domain-specific knowledge as the ‘dark matter’ of adult intelligence: gf/gc,
personality and interest correlates. The Journals of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences and Social
Sciences, 55, 69–84.
Ackerman, P.L., Bowen, K.R., Beier, M.E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences
and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 797–825.
Ackerman, P.L., & Goff, M. (1994). Typical intellectual engagement and personality: Reply to Rocklin.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 150–153.
Ackerman, P.L., & Heggestad, E.D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: Evidence for
overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
Ackerman, P.L., Kanfer, R., & Goff, M. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive determinants and
consequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 270–304.
Ackerman, P.L., & Rolfhus, E.L. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence: Knowledge, abilities, and non-
ability traits. Psychology and Aging, 14, 314–330.
Baddeley, A. (1968). A 3 min reasoning test based on grammatical transformation. Psychonomic Science,
10, 341–342.
Beier, M., & Ackerman, P. (2001). Current-events knowledge in adults: An investigation of age,
intelligence, and nonability determinants. Psychology and Aging, 16, 615–628.
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Study Process Questionnaire manual. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Biggs, J.B. (1992). Why and how do Hong Kong students learn? Using the Learning and Study Process
Questionnaires (Education Paper No. 14). Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong
Kong.
Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
 436 A. Furnham et al.

Cattell, R.B. (1967). The theory of fluid and crystallised intelligence. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 37, 209–224.
Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

Cattell, R.B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. Amsterdam: North Holland. (First
published 1971)
Ceci, S.J. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components?
A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27, 703–722.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model to understand the personality–
intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Ackerman, P. (2006). Ability and non-ability correlates of
general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 419–429.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). Personality and approaches to learning predict
preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 241–250.
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.
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Duff, A. (2003). Quality of learning on an MBA programme: The impact of approaches to learning on
academic performance. Educational Psychology, 23, 123–139.
Duff, A., Boyle, E., & Dunleavy, J.F. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning
and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1907–1920.
East, R., & Forgas, J. (2002). Mood effects on responding to general knowledge questions. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 54, 23–43.
Fox, R.A., McManus, I.C., & Winder, B.C. (2001). The shortened Study Process Questionnaire: An
investigation of its structure and longitudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 511–530.
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Personality, intelligence, and general knowledge.
Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 69–90.
Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & McDougall, F. (2003). Personality, cognitive ability, and beliefs
about intelligence as predictors of academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 14,
47–64.
Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Moutafi, J. (2005). Personality and intelligence: Gender, the Big
Five, self-estimated and psychometric intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
13, 11–24.
Furnham, A., Christopher, A.N., Garwood, J., & Martin, G.N. (2007). Approaches to learning and the
acquisition of general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1563–1571.
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P.L. (1992). Personality–intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual
engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537–553.
Hambrick, D.Z., & Engle, R.W. (2002). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age
on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cognitive Psychol-
ogy, 44, 339–387.
Hammerton, M. (1969). Interference between low information verbal output and a cognitive task. Nature,
222, 196–197.
Irwing, P., Cammock, T., & Lynn, R. (2001). Some evidence for the existence of a general factor of
semantic memory and its components. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 857–871.
Kline, P. (1991). Intelligence: The psychometric view. London: Routledge.
Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2002). Sex differences in general knowledge, semantic memory and reasoning
ability. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 545–556.
Mariani, C., Sacco, L., Spinnler, H., & Venneri, A. (2002). General knowledge of the world: A standardis-
ing assessment. Neurological Sciences, 23, 161–175.
Matthews, G., & Deary, I.J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
McCrae, R. (1993). Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality. Imagination, Cognition
and Personality, 13, 39–55.
McCrae, R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor V. European Journal of
Personality, 13, 39–55.
Rolfhus, E.L., & Ackerman, P.L. (1996). Self-report knowledge: At the crossroads of ability, interest, and
personality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 174–188.
 Educational Psychology 437

Rolfhus, E.L., & Ackerman, P.L. (1999). Assessing individual differences in knowledge: Knowledge
structures and traits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 511–526.
Downloaded By: [University College London] At: 11:34 14 July 2008

Stanovich, K. (1994). Reconceptualizing intelligence: Dysrationalia as an intuition pump. Educational

Researcher, 23, 11–22.
Stanovich, K. (2001). The rationality of educating for wisdom. Educational Psychologist, 36, 247–251.
Vernon, P. (1950). The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London: Methuen.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Wonderlic, E. (1992). Wonderlic Personnel Test. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic.
Zhang, L. (2000). University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs’ 3P
model. Journal of Psychology, 134, 37–55.
Zhang, L. (2004). Learning approaches and career personality types: Biggs and Holland united.
Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 65–81.

View publication stats