Psychological Bulletin

Anglim, Jeromy; Dunlop, Patrick D.; Wee, Serena; Horwood, Sharon; Wood, Joshua K.; Marty, Andrew

doi: 10.1037/bul0000373pmid: N/A

This study provides a comprehensive assessment of the associations of personality and intelligence. It presents a meta-analysis (N = 162,636, k = 272) of domain, facet, and item-level correlations between personality and intelligence (general, fluid, and crystallized) for the major Big Five and HEXACO hierarchical frameworks of personality: NEO Personality Inventory–Revised, Big Five Aspect Scales, Big Five Inventory–2, and HEXACO Personality Inventory–Revised. It provides the first meta-analysis of personality and intelligence to comprehensively examine (a) facet-level correlations for these hierarchical frameworks of personality, (b) item-level correlations, (c) domain- and facet-level predictive models. Age and sex differences in personality and intelligence, and study-level moderators, are also examined. The study was complemented by four of our own unpublished data sets (N = 26,813) which were used to assess the ability of item-level models to provide generalizable prediction. Results showed that openness (ρ = .20) and neuroticism (ρ = −.09) were the strongest Big Five correlates of intelligence and that openness correlated more with crystallized than fluid intelligence. At the facet level, traits related to intellectual engagement and unconventionality were more strongly related to intelligence than other openness facets, and sociability and orderliness were negatively correlated with intelligence. Facets of gregariousness and excitement seeking had stronger negative correlations, and openness to aesthetics, feelings, and values had stronger positive correlations with crystallized than fluid intelligence. Facets explained more than twice the variance of domains. Overall, the results provide the most nuanced and robust evidence to date of the relationship between personality and intelligence.

Emslander, Valentin; Scherer, Ronny

doi: 10.1037/bul0000369pmid: N/A

Executive functions (EFs) are key skills underlying other cognitive skills that are relevant to learning and everyday life. Although a plethora of evidence suggests a positive relation between the three EF subdimensions, inhibition, shifting, and updating, and math skills for schoolchildren and adults, the findings on the magnitude of and possible variations in this relation are inconclusive for preschool children and several narrow math skills (i.e., math intelligence). Therefore, the present meta-analysis aimed to (a) synthesize the relation between EFs and math intelligence (an aggregate of math skills) in preschool children; (b) examine which study, sample, and measurement characteristics moderate this relation; and (c) test the joint effects of EFs on math intelligence. Utilizing data extracted from 47 studies (363 effect sizes, 30,481 participants) from 2000 to 2021, we found that, overall, EFs are significantly related to math intelligence (r¯= .34, 95% CI [.31, .37]), as are inhibition (r¯= .30, 95% CI [.25, .35]), shifting (r¯= .32, 95% CI [.25, .38]), and updating (r¯= .36, 95% CI [.31, .40]). Key measurement characteristics of EFs, but neither children’s age nor gender, moderated this relation. These findings suggest a positive link between EFs and math intelligence in preschool children and emphasize the importance of measurement characteristics. We further examined the joint relations between EFs and math intelligence via meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Evaluating different models and representations of EFs, we did not find support for the expectation that the three EF subdimensions are differentially related to math intelligence.

Hutchinson, Brendan T.; Pammer, Kristen; Bandara, Kavindu; Jack, Bradley N.

doi: 10.1037/bul0000371pmid: N/A

Inattentional blindness (IB), the failure to notice something right in front of you, offers cognitive scientists and practitioners alike a unique means of studying the nature of visual perception. The present meta-analysis sought to provide the first synthesis of the two leading theories of IB—attention set and load theory. We aimed to estimate the magnitude of the effect of each, how they interact, and how task parameters moderate the magnitude of IB summary estimates. We further sought to address several theoretical issues that have persisted within this broad literature. A total of 317 effect sizes from 81 studies that had manipulated attention set or load were synthesized in a multilevel meta-analysis. Results indicated no significant difference between the attention set summary estimate (odds ratio [OR] = 3.26, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] [2.33, 4.57]) and the load summary estimate (OR = 1.75, 95% CI [1.10, 2.79]). Theoretical moderators included a difference between feature attention sets (OR = 5.02, 95% CI [2.95, 8.55]), semantic attention sets (OR = 2.64, 95% CI [1.64, 4.25]), and inherent sets (OR = 1.90, 95% CI [1.35, 2.68]), while perceptual load (OR = 2.55, 95% CI [1.66, 3.92]) and cognitive load (OR = 1.67, 95% CI [1.14, 2.44]) were more comparable. The primary task was found as a key task parameter that moderated summary estimates. The attention set summary estimate was moderated by the number of targets and distractors, whereas the load summary estimate was moderated by the full attention (FA) trial exclusion criterion. Analyses indicated any potential publication bias were overall not likely to impact our conclusions. We discuss the implications of results for a conceptual understanding of IB and how the phenomenon can be more reliably studied in future.

Roberts, Brady R. T.; MacLeod, Colin M.; Fernandes, Myra A.

doi: 10.1037/bul0000360pmid: 35878067

The enactment effect is the phenomenon that physically performing an action represented by a word or phrase (e.g., clap, clap your hands) results in better memory than does simply reading it. We examined data from three different methodological approaches to provide a comprehensive review of the enactment effect across 145 behavioral, 7 neuroimaging, and 31 neurological patient studies. Boosts in memory performance following execution of a physical action were compared to those produced by reading words or phrases, by watching an experimenter perform actions, or by engaging in self-generated imagery. Across the behavioral studies, we employed random-effects meta-regression with robust variance estimation (RVE) to reveal an average enactment effect size of g = 1.23. Further meta-analyses revealed that variations in study design and comparison task reliably influence the size of the enactment effect, whereas four other experiment factors—test format, learning instruction type, retention interval, and the presence of objects during encoding—likely do not influence the effect. Neuroimaging studies demonstrated enactment-related activation to be prevalent in the motor cortex and inferior parietal lobule. Patient studies indicated that, regardless of whether impairments of memory (e.g., Alzheimer’s) or of motor capability (e.g., Parkinson’s) were present, patients were able to benefit from enactment. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis highlight two components accounting for the memory benefit from enactment: a primary mental contribution relating to planning the action and a secondary physical contribution of the action itself.

Everaert, Jonas; Vrijsen, Janna N.; Martin-Willett, Renée; van de Kraats, Livia; Joormann, Jutta

doi: 10.1037/bul0000367pmid: N/A

Emotional bias in explicit memory is theorized to play a prominent role in the etiology, maintenance, and recurrence of depression. Even though this cognitive bias is regarded as one of the most robust phenomena in depression, its magnitude and boundary conditions in depression are currently unknown. This review presents two three-level meta-analyses to estimate the overall effect size and identify moderators of explicit memory bias in depression. Meta-analysis I (153 studies, 686 contrasts) revealed a small overall effect size for naturalistic explicit memory bias in depression, g = 0.241, 95% CI [0.179, 0.304]. The magnitude of the overall effect was moderated by emotional valence of stimuli, operational definition of memory bias, depth of processing during encoding, explicit memory task, and the (non-)verbal nature of stimuli. Equivalent effect sizes were found for minors and adults as well as for clinical and subclinical depression. Remarkably, a nonsignificant effect size emerged for remitted depression. Following up on the latter finding, Meta-analysis II (21 studies, 80 contrasts) examined explicit memory bias in remitted depression under naturalistic conditions and under mood/stress induction. Results yielded a nonsignificant overall effect size, g = 0.131, 95% CI [−0.045, 0.307], but a significant effect size for study conditions with mood or stress induction, g = 0.273, 95% CI [0.004, 0.542]. Both meta-analyses indicated high levels of heterogeneity, even after accounting for variation explained by sample and study characteristics. The findings are consistent with the view that depression is characterized by an explicit memory bias that may persist beyond a depressive episode. These findings have implications for cognitive theories of vulnerability to depression as well as clinical interventions.