“To what extent do our genes influence personality and intelligence? Evaluate the evidence with the consideration of ethical and measurement issues”
INTRODUCTION
Genetic proves to be a pivotal component in shaping individual’s traits such as personality and intelligence; it is explicated as the study of heredity and the variations of inherited characteristics (Deary, Cox and Hill, 2022). Whereas, heritability expounded as the proportion of variation within population traits that can be attributed to inherited genetic components. Certain gene variation might contribute in particular traits that are further related to temperament. Research has shown that intelligence proves to be first behavioural trait studied by using an emerging quantitative genetic design such as twin and adoption studies (Mishara and Weisstub, 2021). These researches have consistently shown that genes create influence on individual differences within intelligence and it is substantial. Difference between the individuals proves to be significantly heritable and it is ubiquitous for behavioural traits. Although the pervasiveness of research making it a commonplace observation, in some areas of the behavioural research significantly in psychiatry; the pendulum has shifted from the focus on nurture to a focus on nature and this is further important for highlighting second law of genetics.
For the complex traits and common disorder, all traits have shown substantial environment that is often influencing heritability is not 100% for different traits (Zwir et al, 2020). Genetic and environment influence leading to create interplay between environment and genes that involves the interaction and corelation in developmental complex traits (Anglim et al, 2022). There are many types of cognitive ability and test that develops individual differences and these are substantially and positively correlated with each other. Understanding the extent up-to which genetics inform personality and intelligence has been raising fundamental questions that are pertinent towards two of the classic debate in psychology- “nature versus nurture “and “free will versus determinism debate”. The genetics ostensibly reiterating nature arguments through suggesting inherent biological factor that dictates individual differences. However, this perceptive has been facing examination from the proponents of nurture perspective that consistently highlighting genetic and environmental factors.
The present essay aims to assess the extent to which genes influence personality and intelligence while concomitantly considering historical and contemporary theoretical insights. The specific focus would be implied on Eysenck PEN model for intelligence, Eysenck’s PEN model as tested by Eaves et al (1989), Galton (Hereditary Genius) and Robert Plomin (modern research on genetics influence on intelligence)
MAIN BODY
The concept of heritability determined as the extent in which genetic differences contribute in developing differences within observed behaviour. In statistically manner, this term refers to the contribution and proportion of variance within phenotypic variation attributable. The assessment of heritability and genes undertaken in varied manner such as by implying twin method (Zwir et al, 2020). Primary goal of this method was to identify the estimation of heritability and proportion of total variance in trait which can be explained through genetic variation. Biosocial theories examining the ways in which genetic and environmental factors contribute in variance under population (Zwir et al, 2020). One of the foremost approaches of measurement is to assess the heritability; this is delineated as a proportion expressed within numeric values that ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 variation. Narrow sense heritability determined as the proportion of phenotypic variance within trait attributable and provides additive effect with regards to genetic variation (Stanovich and Toplak, 2023). The human personality dimensions are evident to be 50% heritable; notably, heritability determined as the proportion of variation with trait between the individuals under same population and this might be due to genes that has been passed from parents.
There is strong correlation has been witnessed heritability and personality. In accordance with the twin adoption studies, 100 of genetic variants impacts its complex development whilst, there are only few has been identified (Lukaszewski et al, 2020). The heredity of the genetic basis proves to be an important determinant within personality because the contextual components such as temperament, intelligence and physique are further dependent on genetic endowment of a person. In context of intelligence, it has been witnessed that intelligence associate with genetic component (Hindley et al, 2023). Francis Galton argued that intelligence runs in families; the inheritability is not limited to intelligence, further, Galton believes that there are many other aspects which have been inherited by people such as ability of senses. The intelligence can be passed through generations, however, later the introduction of statistical concepts compounds with heritability quantifying the extent up-to which genetic factors contributing in variation of traits under population (Hindley et al, 2023). The hereditary nature of intelligence has set a benchmark for future exploration with regards to genetic bases of personality.
Eysenck proposed PEN model for intelligence; this aligns with the principle of aggregation under which all the measures show higher reliability when they are comprised with different items. Each of the domain in PEN model associates with different factors such as habits, behaviours and so on that increases the reliability of measurement (Eysenck, Barrett and Saklofske, 2021). At the top of hierarchy, the super factors of Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism (PEN) are compounds with lower-order factors. This model is focusing on specified traits and considering genetic underpinnings which has been demonstrated via twin studies and evidence related to higher similarities within personality trait among genetic related individuals. These historical theories have been propelling development of personality psychology under the empirical researches (Eysenck, Barrett and Saklofske, 2021). Prior to developing PEN model there are varied personality based two dimensions encompasses with extraversion- introversion and neuroticism-emotional stability was undertaken. Individuals who have high level of extraversion engages in more social activities as they are talkative by nature (Lukaszewski et al, 2020). The Extraversion is measured through continuum ranges from high to low and accordingly, it recognises trait within individual and this is further determined as a personality trait passed through genes.
The model considering the genetic underpinning as it is demonstrating twin and family studies that has shown greater similarities among the genetically related individuals. This is laying down in the historical theories which is propelling development related to personality psychology and this is further aiming to empirically grounded investigations (Neubauer, 2021). Hence, Eysenck’s work emerged as a better recognition in personality traits through the dimension of openness, extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism and agreeableness (Neubauer, 2021). This framework has been proven invaluable in assessing and validating personality traits that often related with genetic influence and subsequent twin studies which in providing assurance related to heritability of these traits (Safdari et al, 2023). Consistent research has brought the understanding of genes that further based on personality traits undertaken from twin studies.
Whereas, Eysenck’s PEN model that was tested by Eaves et al (1989) provided essential insights regarding individual differences within personality and temperament. In accordance with this theoretical instance personality could be studied while considering temperamental or cognitive aspects (Morfaki, 2021). However, major focus is implied on the temperament aspect within PEN model, in case of personality study the considered organism are human beings that were preferably randomly selected; the characteristics and traits were measured through experiment, rating, self-rating and projective test. Descriptively; individual differences under personality and temperament were analysed in terms of trait. As a result, PEN model proposed the hierarchical taxonomy for personality that involves same traits that are specified for intelligence (Francis et al, 2021). At the bottom level of hierarchy, behavioural aspect such as talking with friend was specified, at the second level, habit of talking with friend on multiple occasion was determined; this is signifying about recurrent behaviour.
The third level of the hierarchy comprised with factors such as sociability that depicts about interconnection sets within habits. Whilst, at the top of hierarchy the super factors and dimensions Extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), and psychoticism (P) presented. In accordance with the arousal theory Eysenck has been providing biological explanation related to extraversion by ascending reticular activating system [ARAS], due to the different levels within ARAS activity introverts has been characterised through higher levels of activity in comparison to the extraverts (Xu, 2023). Eaves et al (1989) supported Eysenck’s arousal theory and preferred hierarchical taxonomy for identifying the behavioural traits in individuals that shapes by environmental factors. This significantly proves that personality gets influence from external and societal factors and biological association is not solely responsible for this (Hagenbeek et al, 2023).
There was one Australian twin study that was led by Eysenck and his team depicts that identical and fraternal twin supporting researcher to differentiate the influence of genetics from the environmental impacts and factors. The self-report measures and standardised instrument finding the substantial genetic contributions towards Eysenck’s dimension based on the personality traits and these are significantly highlighting identical twin exhibiting greater similarities than fraternal twins (Kandler et al, 2021). However, Canadian twin study which has been undertaken by Costa and McCrae substantiated big five personality traits [extraversion, openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness] that plays crucial role in confirming that genetic factors are accounted for approximately 40-60% of variation within these traits (Zwir et al, 2021). These researches have been suggesting a strong genetic basis that is contributing in determining personality and intelligence. The findings have been corelating with causational and further raising the questions related to observed similarities and their genetic influence. As stated by Eysenck that environmental factors such as shared social experience and upbringings also plays important role in shaping and developing personality traits (Gupta et al, 2024). Relying on self-report psychometric model raising significant concerns compounds with reliability and validity (Safdari et al, 2023). The individuals often misinterpret their traits, potential confounders such as cultural context and peer influence also shaping personality development and this is complicating, he ability of isolating genetic impacts in clear manner. Evidences has been suggesting meaningful impacts of genetic on personality traits and this must be viewed under the limits of existing methodologies along with considering impacts of environmental factors.
Genetic and environmental both the factors are accounted for personality changes; the personality development is explored though genetic and environmental factors and this further contributes in different stability and change domains (Floyd et al, 2021). Beyond characterising personality development at a phenotypic level, this study has been providing insights related to genetic and environmental origins and therefore, this proves to be particularly relevant to competing intrinsic maturations. An individual’s personality is not significantly dependent upon the environment forces, it is the result of genetic blueprint that led to interpret with external environment in varied ways (Floyd et al, 2021). Based on the contextual information these can be witnessed that primary impacts on personality have been developed by genes and the environmental factors shapes the personality traits.
The examination of the intelligence via genetic lens can be detected by the work of Galton who have informed about Hereditary Genius and the intelligence has been vastly inherited. He proposed the idea of tracking intellectual talent that could be traced through familial lines (Zwir et al, 2020). Galton has set the benchmark for future inquiries and moving to the subsequent discourse and empirical studies that have been examining genetic contributions along with varied methodologies (Li et al, 2024). Twin and family studies have been demonstrating that personality traits have been moderately heritable and often predicting varied lifetime outcomes that involves psychopathology. On a statistical note, it has been evident that human personality is 30-60% heritable and hundreds of genetic variants are expected to influencing complex development.
The personality traits have been proven relatively enduring patterns comprised with behaviours, feelings and thoughts. Eysenck Australian twin study demonstrating personality traits which are moderately heritable and predicting different lifetime outcomes that involves psychopathology (Richardson, 2022). Strong phenotypic correlation has been identified over the years between personality traits and genes; however, consistent researches are still going on for identifying whether there is environmental biasness present or not. Galton laid the foundation for future inquiries in context of intelligence and further moving to subsequent towards empirical studies that focuses on examining genetic contribution (Tharshini et al, 2021). Hence, twin data has been demonstrating that genetic influence has been contributing in personality stability and it is significantly relating with age.
Detailed insights in this context have been witnessed and this is specifying about the relative differences exist between individuals which are preserved over a specific period of time and this is typically assessed with test and retest correlation (Bleidorn et al, 2021). There are certain gene variants which is linked with temperament in particular context that involves DRD2 and DRD4 gene variants which are often linked with seeking new experiences, while KATNAL2 gene variant comprised with caution and discipline, PCDH15 and WSCD2 aligns with sociability and MAOA linked with the introversion (Götz et al, 2020). Research revealed that traits such as cooperativeness, self-directedness and self-transcendence are strongly correlated with an individual’s health and further estimation has shown that 50% 58% genes are found to be heritable (Ruch et al, 2021).
By undertaking the comparison between personality assessment results regarding the variations in DNA participants can be known, even there are possibilities of recognising large number of genetic variations (Asendorpf, 2020). However, criticism in this context has been witnessed and it was recognised that there are certain traits which cannot be completely captured in five traits and further individual does not act in consistent manner in different situation. The situational forces develop impact on the personality of people and consequently, they prefer to act; there are more types of personality identified which are wider and does not cover within five personality traits (Harden et al, 2020). There are additional components such as humility identified by researcher which has not been involved within five personality traits (Asendorpf, 2020). Personality can further change by the time and this proves that personality trait that are inherited from genes can change by the time. The external factors create a distinct impact on these traits and certain life events can change the personality of an individual. Thus, this shows that external factors also impact personality traits within individuals that might not consider in five traits. Hence, sole dependency on five traits for understanding relationship between personality and genes might not work in all cases. Similar to personality research the insights regarding intelligence have been enriched via considering Twin study. The intelligence-based research has experienced renaissance with advancement under genetic research and technology (Mitchell, 2020). The operationalisation of intelligence and reliance on the IQ tests raising pertinent concerns as the assessment can perpetuate cultural biasness and this might inadequately reflect on the cognitive abilities across different populations.
Twin study by Eysenck shows that individual differences within human intelligence explained via genetic influence and further makes intelligence one of the significant heritable traits. The majority of the associated genes are implicated in early stage specifically in prenatal development (Anglim et al, 2022). However, some genes are essential for the synaptic functions throughout lifespan. Traits such as weight, longevity shows the robust polygenic corelations with the cognitive performance and it also implies on the over-all development of optimal cognitive function (Sauce et al, 2022). Whilst, Galton theory based on the assumption that brothers and sisters concerned with identical strips and he further attributed that these difference between the variability comprised with choice of patent element from the strip. Galton attributed the likelihood of the monozygotic twins similar to their developmental environment. However, proposed theoretical instance by Galton highlighted certain methodological issues comprised with the operationalisation of intelligence and complete dependency on IQ tests that often raises the pertinent concerns (Rindermann, Becker and Coyle, 2020). This type of assessment can perpetuate cultural biasness and inadequately reflect on cognitive capabilities across the diverse population. Behavioural geneticist Robert Plomin research on the genetic influence on intelligence depicts that, parents genetic influence on children and 1% of DNA creates individual differences. The research of Robert complying with behavioural genetics that signifies that individual differences in terms of intelligence are heritable.
In accordance with Robert study intelligence is described as a major genetic component however, still the research is going on for recognising a single gene that is responsible for differences within intelligence. Research has shown that intelligence is comprised with varied genes and each of them makes small contribution towards a person intelligence. In contemporary literature, contextual arguments regarding Robert study witnessed which states that intelligence is just not merely the product of genetic constitution (Zwir et al, 2022). The environmental influence that is comprised with educational opportunities, cultural context and socio-economic factors; these factors interact dynamically with the genetic predispositions. These arguments setting new benchmark for conducting future researches so that significant insights could be developed and realistic facts can be known. The Flynn effect noted consistent increased within IQ scored in generation and further illustrating about the role of environment factors within intelligence that is challenging the notion related to strict hereditary intellectual capabilities (Hill et al, 2020). The stereotype comprised with threat phenomenon signifying about the impact of societal influence on intelligence testing outcomes. This is highlighting about the scores which are varying and further based on different situational context and perceiving identity norms.
Such kind of evidences suggesting about the prominence related to environmental interaction that focuses on shaping intelligence and underscoring the requirement for holistic perspective which is recognising vital interplay between genetic predispositions along with the external circumstances. The contextual information signifying that environmental factor also develops significant influence on the intelligence level of individuals (Harden and Koellinger, 2020). An individual mindset keeps changing throughout the different stages of life which contributes in their cognitive ability; an individual’s intelligence primarily cannot be determined by the extent of genes. It comprised with different external factors that creates distinct impact on the intelligence level. Factors that contribute in environment are home environment, parenting, education, availability of learning resources and nutrition (Frolov et al, 2021). These are pivotal components which lead to contribute in determining intelligence level of an individual. As individuals interact with each other they get influence from the different personalities and this influences their personality to greater extent and same goes with intelligence (Frolov et al, 2021). Thus, there is no doubt in depicting that environment shapes individual’s personality and intelligence to greater extent.
In psychology, intelligence is measured through tests of aptitude and achievements; However, in early years it is not easy to determine about the intelligence level and it gets impacted through environmental factors (Jeste et al, 2020). Studies have further shown that, intelligence might involve genes as each of the gene makes small contribution towards person intelligence. The Flynn effect is described as the observation rise over the time in context of standardised intelligence test scores (Murtza et al, 2021). By undertaking IQ measurement intelligence can be determined, however, Flynn effect holds a potential biasness; the magnitude of the differential item functioning found to be small for each of the item. Whilst, cumulative effect for all items underestimating Flynn effect via three IQ points on per decade (Zwir et al, 2022). Thus, it is leading to biasness close towards expected size and effect itself. There are 206 genomic loci, implicated 1,041 genes, 191 novel loci and 963 novel genes found to be associated with cognitive abilities. Additionally, certain intelligence traits such as mental illness might influenced by genetics in individuals (Jeste et al, 2020). Through standardised tests batteries psychologist determines the intelligence of an individual, these tests are suitable for wide range of ages. However, criticism of IQ tests has been underpinning that results are often used for labelling some individuals as a slow learner; these tests are not associated with determining emotional domains such as emotion, motivation, attitudes and other similar factors (Jeste et al, 2020). This creates an ethical issue in undertaking these tests as these are present with potential biasness and therefore, arguments are made in this context which depicts that biasness can lead to ethical issues.
In the assessment of discussed evidence, it is important to contrast the genetic perspectives with the theoretical instances. The Proponents that are associated with humanistic psychology depicts that individuals are comprised with intrinsic potential and capacities that contributes in their growth and this posits for personal experienced that are linked with empathy acceptance and individual choices (Kranzler and Floyd, 2020). Humanistic psychology holding a hopeful and constructive view of human beings and their substantial decision. These are significantly shaping personality and intelligence traits in humans. In collocation approaches, humanistic approach has been providing wider information and suggesting that genetics playing important role within solely deterministic. Thus, implication of the genetic arguments has been extending beyond the scientific discourse and further influencing socio-political practices and ideologies and this is underpinning the important notion comprised with environmental elements (Wagner et al, 2020). The Genetic determinism is further misappropriated and justifying harmful practices that comprised with eugenics and further advocating about the selective breeding of humans for promoting the desired traits (Asbari et al, 2021).
Thus, such kind of misuse perpetuating social injustices and often leading to ethical violations. There is need to imply focus on this domain so that ethical based practices could be undertaken. This is significantly demonstrating about the requirement of cautions while interpreting research outcomes in relation to real-world implications. Moreover, the concept of “bell curve” positing intelligence which is correlating distinctly with social status and ethnicity that is based on varied genetic predispositions. This is raising ethical concerns related to implication of policy making along with the social stratification (Wagner et al, 2020). Hence, this is specifically advocating perspective and role of societal factors in shaping individual capabilities. This is diverting attention with regards to systematic influencers of inequality.
CONCLUSION
Conclusively; this can be said that evaluation of genetic influence on the personality and intelligence revealing about complex interplay existing between hereditary factors and the environmental conditions. The findings of the study developing significant insights regarding the contextual elements and it has been identified that combination of genes and external factors shapes personality and intelligence attribute in individuals. There is no doubt in stating that biological, social and psychological factors contributing in determining the personality and intelligence extent in people. Historical and contemporary research setting a benchmark for exploring on this topic and identifying the crucial domains linked with this. Eysenck’s PEN model, Eysenck’s PEN model as tested by Eaves et al (1989) & Australian twin study, Robert Plomin and Galton’s findings on the hereditary genius upholding the notion of authentic understanding that acknowledging substantial role played by the environment. The PEN model complies with the principle if aggregation and measures the higher reliability and compromised items; each of the super factor that are determined within PEN model determining about the recallability of measurement and contribution of genes within personality. This model has developed a personality theory that has been parted in three dimensions such as psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism. These suggests that trait can be measured and further they are biologically based.
Eysenck Australian twin studies demonstrated that behaviour is a combination of both the gene and environment; complex combination of these two factors determines about the personality and intelligence trait of an individual. Galton’s findings emphasised on certain facts that reveals intellectual abilities and different traits have been inherited and passed throughout generations. He has further determined diverse examples related to prominent families which is suggesting that intelligence runs in families and he believes in hereditary nature of the intelligence. Robert findings revealed that, intelligence has been influenced through genes and therefore each individual has differences in terms of intelligence. However, from the combination historical and theoretical instance it is clear that personality and intelligence operated independently and combination of genes and environmental factors develops significant influence on these factors.
Understanding personality and intelligence found to be a dynamic interplay that exists between genes and the environmental factors. This has been fostering sense of nuanced perspectives that holds different viewpoints in historical and contemporary literature. One thing remains common in paramount of this studies and that is ethical consideration, it is guiding the response related to interpretations and implication of the genetic findings within different domains that ranges from psychological aspects to social components. Furthermore, ethical and measurement biasness has been witnessed in undertaking IQ assessment as this ignores important factors such as motivation and emotions, it only adheres with cognitive abilities and therefore, this often mislead the results. Intelligence of an individual cannot be completely determined by genes as it keeps changing in different stages of life and same aspect applies in the case of personality. Thus, it can be said that combination of genes and environmental factors shapes the personality and intelligence traits of individuals and this keeps changing throughout the different stages of life. Genes are accountable for developing personality and intelligence whilst, environment shapes the personality and intelligence; this proves that both the components play crucial role in determining the extent of personality and intelligence in an individual.
Evaluating genetic influences on personality and intelligence requires critical synthesis of theory, empirical evidence, and ethical debates. If structuring arguments, integrating studies, or critically addressing measurement and ethical issues feels overwhelming, expert assignment help can ensure academic precision, coherent evaluation, and alignment with psychology marking criteria—helping you achieve higher grades with confidence.
REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Anglim, J., Dunlop, P. D., Wee, S., Horwood, S., Wood, J. K., & Marty, A. (2022). Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 148(5-6), 301.
Anglim, J., Dunlop, P. D., Wee, S., Horwood, S., Wood, J. K., & Marty, A. (2022). Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 148(5-6), 301.
Asbari, M., Purwanto, A., Santoso, P. B., Wijayanti, L. M., & Hyun, C. C. (2021). Does genetic personality and parenting style influence students’ character building. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(2), 23-35.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2020). Personality as. The Oxford Handbook of Psychological Situations, 3.
Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J., Hennecke, M., Hill, P. L., ... & Zimmermann, J. (2021). Personality trait stability and change. Personality Science, 2(1), e6009.
Deary, I. J., Cox, S. R., & Hill, W. D. (2022). Genetic variation, brain, and intelligence differences. Molecular psychiatry, 27(1), 335-353.
Eysenck, S. B., Barrett, P. T., & Saklofske, D. H. (2021). The junior Eysenck personality questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 109974.
Floyd, R. G., Farmer, R. L., Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2021). Theories and measurement of intelligence.
Francis, L. J., Jones, S. H., & McKenna, U. (2021). The science of congregation studies and psychographic segmentation: O come all ye thinking types?. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 77(4).
Frolov, D., Radziewicz, W., Saienko, V., Kuchuk, N., Mozhaiev, M., Gnusov, Y., & Onishchenko, Y. (2021). Theoretical and technological aspects of intelligent systems: problems of artificial intelligence. International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security, 21(5), 35-38.
Götz, F. M., Stieger, S., Gosling, S. D., Potter, J., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2020). Physical topography is associated with human personality. Nature human behaviour, 4(11), 1135-1144.
Gupta, P., Galimberti, M., Liu, Y., Beck, S., Wingo, A., Wingo, T., ... & Levey, D. F. (2024). A genome-wide investigation into the underlying genetic architecture of personality traits and overlap with psychopathology. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-15.
Hagenbeek, F. A., Hirzinger, J. S., Breunig, S., Bruins, S., Kuznetsov, D. V., Schut, K., ... & Boomsma, D. I. (2023). Maximizing the value of twin studies in health and behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(6), 849-860.
Harden, K. P., & Koellinger, P. D. (2020). Using genetics for social science. Nature human behaviour, 4(6), 567-576.
Harden, K. P., Engelhardt, L. E., Mann, F. D., Patterson, M. W., Grotzinger, A. D., Savicki, S. L., ... & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2020). Genetic associations between executive functions and a general factor of psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(6), 749-758
Hill, W. D., Weiss, A., Liewald, D. C., Davies, G., Porteous, D. J., Hayward, C., ... & Deary, I. J. (2020). Genetic contributions to two special factors of neuroticism are associated with affluence, higher intelligence, better health, and longer life. Molecular psychiatry, 25(11), 3034-3052.
Hindley, G., Shadrin, A. A., van der Meer, D., Parker, N., Cheng, W., O’Connell, K. S., ... & Andreassen, O. A. (2023). Multivariate genetic analysis of personality and cognitive traits reveals abundant pleiotropy. Nature human behaviour, 7(9), 1584-1600.
Jeste, D. V., Graham, S. A., Nguyen, T. T., Depp, C. A., Lee, E. E., & Kim, H. C. (2020). Beyond artificial intelligence: exploring artificial wisdom. International Psychogeriatrics, 32(8), 993-1001.
Kandler, C., Bratko, D., Butković, A., Hlupić, T. V., Tybur, J. M., Wesseldijk, L. W., ... & Lewis, G. J. (2021). How genetic and environmental variance in personality traits shift across the life span: Evidence from a cross-national twin study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(5), 1079.
Kranzler, J. H., & Floyd, R. G. (2020). Assessing intelligence in children and adolescents: A practical guide for evidence-based assessment. Rowman & Littlefield.
Li, Y., Huang, Y., Wang, H., Zhang, X., Zou, J., & Sun, L. (2024). Quantifying ai psychology: A psychometrics benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17675.
Lukaszewski, A. W., Lewis, D. M., Durkee, P. K., Sell, A. N., Sznycer, D., & Buss, D. M. (2020). An adaptationist framework for personality science. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1151-1174.
Mishara, B. L., & Weisstub, D. N. (2021). Genetic testing for suicide risk assessment: theoretical premises, research challenges and ethical concerns. Preventive medicine, 152, 106685.
Mitchell, K. J. (2020). Innate: How the wiring of our brains shapes who we are. Princeton University Press.
Morfaki, C. (2021). Personality and leadership the short-form revised Eysenck personality questionnaire: A Greek edition (EPQ-RS-GR). SPOUDAI-Journal of Economics and Business, 71(3/4), 13-22.
Murtza, M. H., Gill, S. A., Aslam, H. D., & Noor, A. (2021). Intelligence quotient, job satisfaction, and job performance: The moderating role of personality type. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(3), e2318.
Neubauer, A. C. (2021). The future of intelligence research in the coming age of artificial intelligence–With a special consideration of the philosophical movements of trans-and posthumanism. Intelligence, 87, 101563.
Richardson, K. (2022). Understanding intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Rindermann, H., Becker, D., & Coyle, T. R. (2020). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media. Intelligence, 78, 101406.
Ruch, W., Heintz, S., Gander, F., Hofmann, J., Platt, T., & Proyer, R. T. (2021). The long and winding road: A comprehensive analysis of 50 years of Eysenck instruments for the assessment of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110070.
Safdari, M., Serapio-García, G., Crepy, C., Fitz, S., Romero, P., Sun, L., ... & Matarić, M. (2023). Personality traits in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00184.
Sauce, B., Liebherr, M., Judd, N., & Klingberg, T. (2022). The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence while controlling for genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic background. Scientific reports, 12(1), 7720.
Shiwlani, A., Khan, M., Sherani, A. M. K., Qayyum, M. U., & Hussain, H. K. (2024). REVOLUTIONIZING HEALTHCARE: THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON PATIENT CARE, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT. JURIHUM: Jurnal Inovasi dan Humaniora, 1(5), 779-790.
Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2023). Actively open-minded thinking and its measurement. Journal of Intelligence, 11(2), 27.
Tharshini, N. K., Ibrahim, F., Kamaluddin, M. R., Rathakrishnan, B., & Che Mohd Nasir, N. (2021). The link between individual personality traits and criminality: A systematic review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(16), 8663.
Wagner, J., Orth, U., Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., & Kandler, C. (2020). Toward an integrative model of sources of personality stability and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(5), 438-444.
Xu, T. (2023). Examining the link between personality traits, cognitive performance, and consecutive interpreting. University of Wales Trinity Saint David (United Kingdom).
Zwir, I., Arnedo, J., Del-Val, C., Pulkki-Råback, L., Konte, B., Yang, S. S., ... & Cloninger, C. R. (2020). Uncovering the complex genetics of human character. Molecular psychiatry, 25(10), 2295-2312.
Zwir, I., Del-Val, C., Arnedo, J., Pulkki-Råback, L., Konte, B., Yang, S. S., ... & Cloninger, C. R. (2021). Three genetic–environmental networks for human personality. Molecular Psychiatry, 26(8), 3858-3875.
Zwir, I., Del-Val, C., Hintsanen, M., Cloninger, K. M., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mesa, A., ... & Cloninger, C. R. (2022). Evolution of genetic networks for human creativity. Molecular
