The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence

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.


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


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


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.



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



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;



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.



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



9/28


Figure1

.Apredictedmodelo

ftheinteractionso

fvariablesinH

1-H

10

.


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.,



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.



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.


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


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.



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



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

Documents

The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence