CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 189Cognitive Abilities and TestingEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences

Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge

Ackerman, Phillip L., Bowen, Kristy R., Beier, Margaret E., Kanfer, Ruth·2001·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.797
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The authors investigated the abilities, self-concept, personality, interest, motivational traits, and other determinants of knowledge across physical sciences/technology, biology/psychology, humanities, and civics domains. Tests and self-report measures were administered to 320 university freshmen. Crystallized intelligence was a better predictor than was fluid intelligence for most knowledge domains. Gender differences favoring men were found for most knowledge domains. Accounting for intelligence reduced the gender influence in predicting knowledge differences. Inclusion of nonability predictors further reduced the variance accounted for by gender. Analysis of Advanced Placement test scores largely supported the results of the knowledge tests. Results are consistent with theoretical predictions that development of intellect as knowledge results from investment of cognitive resources, which, in turn, is affected by a small set of trait complexes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.797

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a sample of 320 university freshmen, extraversion was significantly negatively related with all of the ability/knowledge domain traits.

    “As seen in Table 7, extraversion was significantly negatively related with all of the ability/knowledge domain traits”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Ackerman et al., 2001

  • The different pattern of correlations between social potency and social closeness supports measuring these two aspects of extraversion separately.

    “The different pattern of correlations between social potency and social closeness, again, supports measuring these two aspects of extraversion separately.”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Ackerman et al., 2001

  • In the same sample, social potency was significantly negatively related with two knowledge domains (Biology/Psychology and Physical Science), general knowledge, and fluid intelligence.

    “social potency was significantly negatively related with two knowledge domains (Biology/Psychology and Physical Science), general knowledge, and fluid intelligence.”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Ackerman et al., 2001

  • Several subsequent studies by Ackerman and his colleagues, Furnham et al. (1998), and Roberts (2002) found significant negative relationships between extraversion and intelligence.

    “Several subsequent studies by Ackerman and his colleagues (Ackerman, 2000; Ackerman et al., 2001; Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999), Furnham et al. (1998), and Roberts (2002) found significant negative relationships between extraversion and intelligence.”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Ackerman et al., 2001

  • In the same sample, social closeness was significantly negatively related to all of the ability/knowledge domain traits except for fluid intelligence.

    “social closeness was significantly negatively related to all of the ability/knowledge domain traits except for fluid intelligence”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Ackerman et al., 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2001-12
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
797-825
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
DOI
10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.797
OpenAlex
W2026964184
Cited by
189
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
7.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Keywords
gender differences, crystallized intelligence, fluid intelligence, self-concept, personality, interest, motivational traits, knowledge domains, first-year students, cognitive resources, intellectual development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review