Editing Human intelligence (section)

== Theories ==

=== Relevance of IQ tests ===
{{Further|#Insufficiency of measurement via IQ}}
In [[psychology]], human intelligence is commonly assessed by [[Intelligence quotient|IQ scores]] that are determined by IQ tests. In general, higher IQ scores are associated with better outcomes in life.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Brown |first1=M.I. |last2=Wai |first2=J. |year=2021 |title=Can You Ever Be Too Smart for Your Own Good? Comparing Linear and Nonlinear Effects of Cognitive Ability on Life Outcomes |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691620964122 |journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science |volume=16 |issue=6 |pages=1337–1359 |doi=10.1177/1745691620964122 |pmid=33682520 |s2cid=232142799}}</ref> However, while IQ test scores show a high degree of inter-test [[Reliability (statistics)|reliability]], and predict certain forms of achievement effectively, their [[construct validity]] as a holistic measure of human intelligence is considered dubious.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite journal|last1=Borsboom|first1=D.|last2=Mellenbergh|first2=G. J.|last3=van Heerden|first3=J.|date=2004|title=The Concept of Validity|url=https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-295X.111.4.1061|journal=Psychological Review|volume=111|issue=4|pages=1061–1071|doi=10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061|pmid=15482073|s2cid=7189833 }}
|2={{Cite book|last=Macintosh|first=Nicholas|title=IQ and Human Intelligence|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2011|isbn=978-0199585595|pages=190–191}} }}</ref><ref name="Weiten">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ALkaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT331|title=Psychology: Themes and Variations|vauthors=Weiten W|publisher=[[Cengage Learning]]|year=2016|isbn=978-1305856127|page=281}}</ref> While IQ tests are generally understood to measure some forms of intelligence, they may fail to serve as an accurate measure of broader definitions of human intelligence inclusive of [[creativity]] and [[social intelligence]].<ref name="Weiten" /> According to psychologist Wayne Weiten, "IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable."<ref name="Weiten" />

=== Theory of multiple intelligences ===
{{Main|Theory of multiple intelligences}}

[[Howard Gardner]]'s [[theory of multiple intelligences]] is based on studies of normal children and adults, of gifted individuals (including so-called "[[Savant syndrome|savant]]s"), of persons who have suffered brain damage, of experts and [[virtuoso]]s, and of individuals from diverse cultures. Gardner breaks intelligence down into components. In the first edition of his book ''Frames of Mind'' (1983), he described seven distinct types of intelligence: logical-mathematical, [[Linguistic intelligence|linguistic]], [[Spatial intelligence (psychology)|spatial]], musical, [[kinesthetic]], [[interpersonal]], and [[intrapersonal]]. In a second edition, he added two more types of intelligence: naturalist and existential intelligences. He argues that [[psychometric]] (IQ) tests address only linguistic and logical plus some aspects of spatial intelligence.<ref name="APA1995">{{Cite journal|last1=Neisser|first1=U.|last2=Boodoo|first2=G.|last3=Bouchard|first3=T. J., J.|last4=Boykin|first4=A. W.|last5=Brody|first5=N.|last6=Ceci|first6=S. J.|last7=Halpern|first7=D. F.|last8=Loehlin|first8=J. C.|last9=Perloff|first9=R.|last10=Sternberg|first10=R. J.|last11=Urbina|first11=S.|year=1996|title=Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns|journal=American Psychologist|volume=51|issue=2|pages=77–101|doi=10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77|s2cid=20957095|title-link=Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns}}</ref> A criticism of Gardner's theory is that it has never been tested, or subjected to peer review, by Gardner or anyone else, and indeed that it is [[falsifiability|unfalsifiable]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cortland.edu/psych/mi/critique.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100113020206/http://www.cortland.edu/psych/mi/critique.html|url-status=dead|title=Critiques of Multiple Intelligence Theory|archive-date=January 13, 2010|website=SUNY Cortland}}</ref> Others (e.g. Locke, 2005<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Locke  |first1=Edwin A.  |date=2005 |title=Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept |url= |journal= Journal of Organizational Behavior|volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=425–431 |doi=10.1002/job.318 |access-date=}}</ref>) suggest that recognizing many specific forms of intelligence (specific aptitude theory) implies a political—rather than scientific—agenda, intended to appreciate the uniqueness in all individuals, rather than recognizing potentially true and meaningful differences in individual capacities. Schmidt and Hunter<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schmidt |first1=Frank L. |last2=Hunter |first2=John |date=January 2004 |title=General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14717634/ |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=86 |issue=1 |pages=162–173 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162 |issn=0022-3514 |pmid=14717634}}</ref> suggest that the predictive validity of specific aptitudes over and above that of general mental ability, or [[g factor (psychometrics)|"g"]], has not received empirical support. On the other hand, [[Jerome Bruner]] agreed with Gardner that the intelligences were "useful fictions", and went on to state that "his approach is so far beyond the data-crunching of mental testers that it deserves to be cheered."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1983/10/27/state-of-the-child/|title=State of the Child|last=Bruner|first=Jerome S.|work=The New York Review of Books|access-date=2018-10-16|language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Triarchic theory of intelligence ===
{{Main|Triarchic theory of intelligence}}

[[Robert Sternberg]] proposed the [[triarchic theory of intelligence]] to provide a more comprehensive description of intellectual competence than traditional differential or cognitive theories of human ability.<ref name=Sternberg1985>{{Cite book |last=Sternberg|first=Robert J. |year=1985 |title=Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=New York |isbn=978-0-521-26254-5}}</ref> The triarchic theory describes three fundamental aspects of intelligence:

# Analytic intelligence comprises the mental processes through which intelligence is expressed. 
# Creative intelligence is necessary when an individual is confronted with a challenge that is nearly, but not entirely, novel or when an individual is engaged in automatizing the performance of a task. 
# Practical intelligence is bound to a sociocultural milieu and involves adaptation to, selection of, and shaping of the environment to maximize fit in the context.

The triarchic theory does not argue against the validity of a general intelligence factor; instead, the theory posits that general intelligence is part of analytic intelligence, and only by considering all three aspects of intelligence can the full range of intellectual functioning be understood.

Sternberg updated the triarchic theory and renamed it to the Theory of Successful Intelligence.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite journal |last=Sternberg|first= R.J. |year=1978 |title=The theory of successful intelligence |journal=Review of General Psychology |volume=3 |pages=292–316 |doi=10.1037/1089-2680.3.4.292 |issue=4|s2cid=147144382 |url=https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=28439202 }}
|2={{Cite journal |last=Sternberg|first= R.J. |year=2003 |title=A broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful intelligence |journal=Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research |volume=55 |pages=139–154 |doi=10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.139 |issue=3}} }}</ref> He now defines intelligence as an individual's assessment of success in life by the individual's own ([[nomothetic and idiographic|idiographic]]) standards and within the individual's sociocultural context. Success is achieved by using combinations of analytical, creative, and practical intelligence. The three aspects of intelligence are referred to as processing skills. The processing skills are applied to the pursuit of success through what were the three elements of practical intelligence: adapting to, shaping of, and selecting of one's environments. The mechanisms that employ the processing skills to achieve success include utilizing one's strengths and compensating or correcting for one's weaknesses.

Sternberg's theories and research on intelligence remain contentious within the scientific community.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite journal |author=Brody, N. |year=2003 |title=Construct validation of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test: Comment and reanalysis |journal=Intelligence |volume=31 |pages=319–329 |doi=10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00087-3 |issue=4}}
|2={{Cite journal |author=Brody, N. |year=2003 |title =What Sternberg should have concluded |journal=Intelligence |volume=31 |pages=339–342 |doi=10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00190-3 |issue=4}}
|3={{Cite journal |author=Gottfredson, L.S. |year=2003 |title=Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence |journal=Intelligence |volume=31 |pages=343–397 |doi=10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00085-5 |issue=4}}
|4={{Cite journal |author=Gottfredson, L.S. |year=2003 |title=On Sternberg's 'Reply to Gottfredson{{'-}} |journal=Intelligence |volume=31 |pages=415–424 |doi=10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00024-2 |issue=4}} }}</ref>

=== PASS theory of intelligence ===
{{Main|PASS Theory of Intelligence}}

Based on [[A. R. Luria]]'s (1966) seminal work on the modularization of brain function,<ref name=luria-1966>{{cite book|last=Luria|first=A. R.|year=1966|title=Higher cortical functions in man|location=New York|publisher=Basic Books}}</ref> and supported by decades of neuroimaging research, the [[PASS Theory of Intelligence]]  (Planning/Attention/Simultaneous/Successive) proposes that cognition is organized in three systems and the following four processes:<ref name=das-naglieri-kirby-1994>{{cite book|last1=Das|first1=J. P.|last2=Naglieri|first2=J. A.|last3=Kirby|first3=J. R.|year=1994|title=Assessment of cognitive processes|location=Needham Heights, Mass.|publisher=Allyn & Bacon}}</ref> 
# Planning involves executive functions responsible for controlling and organizing behavior, selecting and constructing strategies, and monitoring performance.
# Attention is responsible for maintaining arousal levels and alertness, and ensuring focus on relevant stimuli.
# Simultaneous processing is engaged when the relationship between items and their integration into whole units of information is required. Examples of this include recognizing figures, such as a triangle within a circle vs. a circle within a triangle, or the difference between "he had a shower before breakfast" and "he had breakfast before a shower."
# Successive processing is required for organizing separate items in a sequence such as remembering a sequence of words or actions exactly in the order in which they had just been presented.
These four processes are functions of four areas of the brain. Planning is broadly located in the front part of our brains, the frontal lobe. Attention and arousal are combined functions of the frontal lobe and the lower parts of the cortex, although the parietal lobes are also involved in attention as well. Simultaneous processing and Successive processing occur in the posterior region or the back of the brain. Simultaneous processing is broadly associated with the occipital and the parietal lobes while Successive processing is broadly associated with the frontal-temporal lobes. The PASS theory is heavily indebted both to Luria{{r|luria-1966}}<ref name=luria-1973>{{cite book|last=Luria|first=A. R.|year=1973|title=The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology|location=New York}}</ref> and to studies in cognitive psychology involved in promoting a better look at intelligence.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Das | first1 = J.P. | year = 2002 | title = A Better look at Intelligence | journal = Current Directions in Psychological Science | volume = 11 | issue = 1| pages = 28–32 | doi=10.1111/1467-8721.00162| s2cid = 146129242 }}</ref>

=== Piaget's theory and Neo-Piagetian theories ===
{{Main|Piaget's theory of cognitive development|Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development}}

In [[Piaget's theory of cognitive development]] the focus is not on mental abilities but rather on a child's mental models of the world. As a child develops, the child creates increasingly more accurate models of the world which enable the child to interact with the world more effectively. One example is [[object permanence]] with which the child develops a model in which objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, heard, or touched.

Piaget's theory described four main stages and many sub-stages in the development. These four main stages are:
# sensorimotor stage (birth–2 years)
# pre-operational stage (2–7 years)
# concrete operational stage (7–11 years)
# formal operations stage (11–16 years)<ref name="Piaget, J. 2001">{{cite book|last=Piaget|first=J.|year=2001|title=Psychology of intelligence|publisher=Routledge}}</ref>
Progress through these stages is correlated with, but not identical to psychometric IQ.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|editor-last1=Elkind|editor-first1=D.|editor-last2=Flavell|editor-first2=J.|year=1969|title=Studies in cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jean Piaget|location=New York|publisher=Oxford University Press}}
|2={{cite journal | last1 = Weinberg | first1 = Richard A. | title = Intelligence and IQ, Landmark Issues and Great Debates | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 44 | issue = 2| pages = 98–104 | doi=10.1037/0003-066x.44.2.98| year = 1989 }} }}</ref> Piaget conceptualizes intelligence as an activity more than as a capacity.

One of Piaget's most famous studies focused purely on the discriminative abilities of children between the ages of two and a half years old, and four and a half years old. He began the study by taking children of different ages and placing two lines of sweets, one with the sweets in a line spread further apart, and one with the same number of sweets in a line placed more closely together. He found that, "Children between 2 years, 6 months old and 3 years, 2 months old correctly discriminate the relative number of objects in two rows; between 3 years, 2 months and 4 years, 6 months they indicate a longer row with fewer objects to have 'more'; after 4 years, 6 months they again discriminate correctly".<ref>{{cite book|last=Piaget|first=J.|year=1953|title=The origin of intelligence in the child|location=New Fetter Lane, New York|publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul}}</ref> Initially younger children were not studied, because if at the age of four years a child could not conserve quantity, then a younger child presumably could not either. The results show however that children that are younger than three years and two months have quantity conservation, but as they get older they lose this quality, and do not recover it until four and a half years old. This attribute may be lost temporarily because of an overdependence on perceptual strategies, which correlates more candy with a longer line of candy, or because of the inability for a four-year-old to reverse situations.<ref name="Piaget, J. 2001"/>

This experiment demonstrated several results. First, younger children have a discriminative ability that shows the logical capacity for cognitive operations exists earlier than previously acknowledged. Also, young children can be equipped with certain qualities for cognitive operations, depending on how logical the structure of the task is. Research also shows that children develop explicit understanding at age five and as a result, the child will count the sweets to decide which has more. Finally the study found that overall quantity conservation is not a basic characteristic of humans' native inheritance.<ref name="Piaget, J. 2001"/>

Piaget's theory has been criticized on the grounds that the age of appearance of a new model of the world, such as object permanence, is dependent on how the testing is done (see the article on [[object permanence]]). More generally, the theory may be very difficult to test empirically because of the difficulty of proving or disproving that a mental model is the explanation for the results of the testing.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Kitchener | first1 = R. F. | title = Piaget's epistemic subject and science education: Epistemological vs. Psychological issues | doi = 10.1007/BF00592203 | journal = Science and Education | volume = 2 | issue = 2 | pages = 137–148 | year = 1993 |bibcode = 1993Sc&Ed...2..137K | s2cid = 143676265 }}</ref>

[[Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development]] expand Piaget's theory in various ways such as also considering psychometric-like factors such as processing speed and working memory, "hypercognitive" factors like self-monitoring, more stages, and more consideration on how progress may vary in different domains such as spatial or social.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|last=Demetriou|first=A.|year=1998|chapter=Cognitive development|editor-first1=A. |editor-last1=Demetriou|editor-first2=W.|editor-last2=Doise|editor-first3=K.F.M.|editor-last3=van Lieshout|title=Life-span developmental psychology|pages=179–269|location=London|publisher=Wiley}}
|2={{cite book| last1=Demetriou | first1=Andreas | last2=Mouyi | first2=Antigoni | last3=Spanoudis | first3=George | chapter=The Development of Mental Processing | publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | publication-place=Hoboken, N.J.| year=2010 | isbn=978-0-470-39013-9 | doi=10.1002/9780470880166.hlsd001010|editor-first=W.F.|editor-last=Overton|title=Biology, cognition and methods across the life-span|series=the Handbook of life-span development|volume=1}}
|3={{cite book|last=Nesselroade|first=J.R.|year=2011|chapter=Methods in the study of life-span human development: Issues and answers|pages=36–55|editor-first=W.F.|editor-last=Overton|title=Biology, cognition and methods across the life-span|series=the Handbook of life-span development|volume=1| publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | publication-place=Hoboken, N.J.}} }}</ref>

=== Parieto-frontal integration theory of intelligence ===
{{main|Parieto-frontal integration theory}}

Based on a review of 37 [[neuroimaging]] studies, Jung and Haier proposed that the biological basis of intelligence stems from how well the [[frontal lobe|frontal]] and [[parietal lobe|parietal]] regions of the brain communicate and exchange information with each other.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Jung | first1 = R. E. | last2 = Haier | first2 = R. J. | s2cid = 14699011 | year = 2007 | title = The parieto-frontal integration theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: converging neuroimaging evidence | journal = Behavioral and Brain Sciences | volume = 30 | issue = 2| pages = 135–187 | doi=10.1017/s0140525x07001185| pmid = 17655784 }}</ref> Subsequent neuroimaging and lesion studies report general consensus with the theory.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal | last1 = Colom | first1 = R. | last2 = Haier | first2 = R. J. | last3 = Head | first3 = K. | last4 = Alvarez-Linera | first4 = J. | last5 = Ouiroga | first5 = M. A. | last6 = Shih | first6 = P. C. | last7 = Jung | first7 = R. E. | year = 2009 | title = Gray matter correlates of fluid, crystallized, and spatial intelligence: testing the P-FIT model | journal = Intelligence | volume = 37 | issue = 2| pages = 124–135 | doi = 10.1016/j.intell.2008.07.007 }}
|2={{cite journal | last1 = Vakhtin | first1 = A. A. | last2 = Ryman | first2 = S. G. | last3 = Flores | first3 = R. A. | last4 = Jung | first4 = R. E. | year = 2014 | title = Functional brain networks contributing to the parieto-frontal integration theory of intelligence | journal = NeuroImage | volume = 103 | pages = 349–354 | doi = 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.055 | pmid=25284305| s2cid = 2870453 }}
|3={{cite journal | last1 = Gläscher | first1 = J. | last2 = Rudrauf | first2 = D. | last3 = Colom | first3 = R. | last4 = Paul | first4 = L. K. | last5 = Tranel | first5 = D. | last6 = Damasio | first6 = H. | last7 = Adolphs | first7 = R. | year = 2010 | title = Distributed neural system for general intelligence revealed by lesion mapping | journal = Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience | volume = 9 | issue = 3| pages =  265–72| doi = 10.1093/scan/nss124 | pmid=23171618 | pmc=3980800| bibcode = 2010PNAS..107.4705G}} }}</ref> A review of the neuroscience and intelligence literature concludes that the parieto-frontal integration theory is the best available explanation for human intelligence differences.<ref name="DPJ 2010">{{cite journal | last1 = Deary | first1 = I. J. | last2 = Penke | first2 = L. | last3 = Johnson | first3 = W. | year = 2010 | title = The neuroscience of human intelligence differences |url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/8895819/the_neuroscience_of_human_intelligence.pdf| journal = Nature Reviews Neuroscience | volume = 11 | issue = 3| pages = 201–211 | doi = 10.1038/nrn2793 | pmid=20145623| s2cid = 5136934 | hdl = 20.500.11820/9b11fac3-47d0-424c-9d1c-fe6f9ff2ecac | hdl-access = free }}</ref>

=== Investment theory ===
Based on the [[Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory]], the tests of intelligence most often used in the {{clarify|text=relevant|reason=relevant to what?|date=August 2023}} studies include measures of [[Fluid and crystallized intelligence|fluid ability (''g<sub>f</sub>'') and crystallized ability (''g<sub>c</sub>'')]]; that differ in their trajectory of development in people.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Horn | first1 = J. L. | last2 = Cattell | first2 = R. B. | year = 1966 | title = Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences | journal = Journal of Educational Psychology | volume = 57 | issue = 5| pages = 253–270 | doi=10.1037/h0023816| pmid = 5918295 }}</ref> The "investment theory" by Cattell<ref>{{cite book|last=Cattell|first=R. B.|year=1987|title=Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action|location=New York|publisher=North-Holland}}</ref> states that the [[individual differences]] observed in the procurement of skills and knowledge (''g<sub>c</sub>'') are partially attributed to the "investment" of ''g<sub>f</sub>'', thus suggesting the involvement of [[fluid intelligence]] in every aspect of the learning process.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kvist | first1 = A. V. | last2 = Gustafsson | first2 = J. E. | year = 2008 | title = The relation between fluid intelligence and the general factor as a function of cultural background: A test of Cattell's investment theory | journal = Intelligence | volume = 36 | issue = 5| pages = 422–436 | doi=10.1016/j.intell.2007.08.004| hdl = 10419/78682 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> The investment theory suggests that personality traits affect "actual" ability, and not scores on an [[IQ]] test.<ref>{{cite book|last=Cattell|first=R. B.|year=1971|title=Abilities: their structure, growth, and action|location=Boston|publisher=Houghton Mifflin}}</ref>

Hebb's theory of intelligence suggested a bifurcation as well, Intelligence A (physiological), that could be seen as a semblance of [[fluid intelligence]] and Intelligence B (experiential), similar to [[crystallized intelligence]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hebb|first=D.O.|year=1939|title=Intelligence in man after large removals of cerebral tissue: Report of four frontal lobe cases.|journal= The Journal of General Psychology|volume=21|number=1|pages=73–87|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221309.1939.9710587|doi=10.1080/00221309.1939.9710587}}</ref>

=== Intelligence compensation theory (ICT) ===
The intelligence compensation theory<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Wood | first1 = P. | last2 = Englert | first2 = P. | s2cid = 55636417 | year = 2009 | title = Intelligence compensation theory: A critical examination of the negative relationship between conscientiousness and fluid and crystallised intelligence | journal = The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psychology | volume = 2 | pages = 19–29 | doi=10.1375/ajop.2.1.19}}</ref> states that individuals who are comparatively less intelligent work harder and more methodically, and become more resolute and thorough (more conscientious) in order to achieve goals, to compensate for their "lack of intelligence" whereas more intelligent individuals do not require traits/behaviours associated with the personality factor [[conscientiousness]] to progress as they can rely on the strength of their cognitive abilities as opposed to structure or effort.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal | last1 = Chamorro-Premuzic | first1 = T. | last2 = Furnham | first2 = A. | year = 2004 | title = A possible model for explaining the personality–intelligence interface | journal = British Journal of Psychology | volume = 95 | issue = 2| pages = 249–264 | doi=10.1348/000712604773952458| pmid = 15142305 }}
|2={{cite journal | last1 = Moutafi | first1 = J. | last2 = Furnham | first2 = A. | last3 = Crump | first3 = J. | year = 2003 | title = Demographic and Personality Predictors of Intelligence: A study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator | journal = European Journal of Personality | volume = 17 | pages = 79–94 | doi=10.1002/per.471| s2cid = 143599504}} }}</ref> The theory suggests the existence of a causal relationship between intelligence and conscientiousness, such that the development of the personality trait of conscientiousness is influenced by intelligence. This assumption is deemed plausible as it is unlikely that the reverse causal relationship could occur;<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Moutafi | first1 = J. | last2 = Furnham | first2 = A. | last3 = Paltiel | first3 = L. | year = 2004 | title = Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? | journal = Personality and Individual Differences | volume = 37 | issue = 5| pages = 1013–1022 | doi=10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.010}}</ref> implying that the negative correlation would be higher between [[fluid intelligence]] (''g<sub>f</sub>'') and conscientiousness. This is justified by the timeline of development of ''g<sub>f</sub>'', ''g<sub>c</sub>'', and personality, as [[crystallized intelligence]] would not have developed completely when personality traits develop. Subsequently, during school-going ages, more conscientious children would be expected to gain more crystallized intelligence (knowledge) through education, as they would be more efficient, thorough, hard-working, and dutiful.<ref>{{cite book|last=Brody|first=N.|year=1992|title=Intelligence|edition=2nd|location=New York|publisher=Academic Press}}</ref>

This theory has recently been contradicted by evidence that identifies ''compensatory sample selection'' which attributes the findings to the bias that comes from selecting samples containing people above a certain threshold of achievement.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Murray | first1 = A. L. | last2 = Johnson | first2 = W. | last3 = McGue | first3 = M. | last4 = Iacono | first4 = W. G. | year = 2014 | title = How are conscientiousness and cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation hypothesis | journal = Personality and Individual Differences | volume = 70 | pages = 17–22 | doi=10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.014}}</ref>

=== Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and cognition ===
The view of cognitive ability has evolved over the years, and {{clarify|text=it is no longer viewed as a fixed property held by an individual. Instead, the current perspective describes it as a general capacity|reason=it's unclear what is the essential difference between "a fixed property" and "a general capacity", is it that something that is fixed is not general, or that a capacity is not a property, or something else? They both just sound like fuzzy vague signifiers a la thingamawhatsits.|date=August 2023}}, comprising not only cognitive, but motivational, social, and behavioural aspects as well. These facets work together to perform numerous tasks. An essential skill often overlooked is that of managing emotions and aversive experiences that can compromise one's quality of thought and activity. Bandura bridges the link between intelligence and success by crediting individual differences in [[self-efficacy]]. Bandura's theory identifies the difference between possessing skills and being able to apply them in challenging situations. The theory suggests that individuals with the same level of knowledge and skill may perform badly, averagely, or excellently based on differences in self-efficacy.

A key role of cognition is to allow for one to predict events and in turn devise methods to deal with these events effectively. These skills are dependent on processing of unclear and ambiguous stimuli. People must be able to rely on their reserve of knowledge to identify, develop, and execute options. They must be able to apply the learning acquired from previous experiences. Thus, a stable sense of self-efficacy is essential to stay focused on tasks in the face of challenging situations.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wood|first1=R.|last2=Bandura|first2=A.|year=1989|title=Social cognitive theory of organizational management|journal=Academy of Management Review|volume=14|issue=3 |pages=361–384|doi=10.2307/258173 |jstor=258173 }}</ref>

Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and intelligence suggests that individuals with a relatively low sense of self-efficacy in any field will avoid challenges. This effect is heightened when they perceive the situations as ''personal threats''. When failure occurs, they recover from it more slowly than others, and credit the failure to an insufficient aptitude. On the other hand, persons with high levels of self-efficacy hold {{clarify|text=a task-diagnostic aim|reason=jargon|date=August 2023}} that leads to effective performance.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bandura | first1 = A | s2cid = 52256247 | year = 1993 | title = Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning | journal = Educational Psychologist | volume = 28 | issue = 2| pages = 117–148 | doi=10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3}}</ref>

=== Process, personality, intelligence and knowledge theory (PPIK) ===
{{Expand section|1=more extensive and clear explanations|date=March 2018|small=no}}
[[File:Development of intelligence with age.jpg|thumb|Predicted growth curves for ''Intelligence as process'', crystallized intelligence, occupational knowledge, and avocational knowledge based on Ackerman's PPIK Theory{{citation needed|date=March 2018}}]]
Developed by Ackerman, the PPIK (process, personality, intelligence, and knowledge) theory further develops the approach on intelligence as proposed by Cattell, the [[#Investment theory|Investment theory]], and [[Donald O. Hebb|Hebb]], suggesting a distinction between ''intelligence as knowledge'' and ''intelligence as process'' (two concepts that are comparable and related to [[Crystallized intelligence|''g<sub>c</sub>'']] and [[Fluid intelligence|''g<sub>f</sub>'']] respectively, but broader and closer to Hebb's notions of "Intelligence A" and "Intelligence B") and integrating these factors with elements such as personality, motivation, and interests.<ref name="Ackerman">{{cite journal | last1 = Ackerman | first1 = P. L. | year = 1996 | title = A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge | journal = Intelligence | volume = 22 | issue = 2| pages = 227–257 | doi=10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1}}</ref><ref name="Ackerman2">{{cite conference|last=Ackerman|first=P.L.|year=1995|title=Personality, intelligence, motivation, and interests: Implications for overlapping traits|conference=Address presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association|location=New York}}</ref>

Ackerman describes the difficulty of distinguishing process from knowledge, as content cannot be eliminated from any ability test.<ref name="Ackerman"/><ref name="Ackerman2"/><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Detterman|first1=D.K.|last2=Andrist|first2=C.G.|year=1990|title=Effect of instructions on elementary cognitive tasks sensitive to individual differences|journal=American Journal of Psychology|volume=103|issue=3 |pages=367–390|doi=10.2307/1423216 |jstor=1423216 |pmid=2221194 }}</ref>

Personality traits are not significantly correlated with the ''intelligence as process'' aspect except in the context of psychopathology. One exception to this generalization has been the finding of [[sex differences]] in cognitive abilities, specifically abilities in mathematical and spatial form.<ref name="Ackerman"/><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Signorella | first1 = M.L. | last2 = Jamison | first2 = W. | year = 1986 | title = Masculinity, femininity, androgyny and cognitive performance: A meta-analysis | journal = Psychological Bulletin | volume = 100 | issue = 2| pages = 207–238 | doi=10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.207}}</ref>

On the other hand, the ''intelligence as knowledge'' factor has been associated with personality traits of Openness and Typical Intellectual Engagement,<ref name="Ackerman"/><ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal|last1=Rolfhus|first1=E.L.|last2=Ackerman|first2=P.L.|year=1996|title=Self-report knowledge: At the crossroads of ability, interest, and personality|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=88|pages=174–188|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.174 }}
|2={{cite journal|last=Rocklin|first=T.|year=1994|title=The relationship between typical intellectual engagement and openness: A comment on Goff and Ackerman|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=86|pages=145–149|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.145 }} }}</ref> which also strongly correlate with verbal abilities (associated with [[crystallized intelligence]]).<ref name="Ackerman"/>

=== Latent inhibition ===
{{main|Latent inhibition}}

It appears that [[Latent inhibition]], the phenomenon of familiar stimuli having a postponed reaction time when compared with unfamiliar stimuli, has a positive correlation with [[creativity]].{{cn|date=August 2023}}