Cited by 206Cognitive Abilities and TestingAging and Gerontology ResearchEgo Development and Educational Practices

Domain-specific knowledge as the “dark matter” of adult intelligence: Gf/Gc, personality and interest correlates

Ackerman, P. L.·2000·The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences

Abstract

An enduring controversy in intelligence theory and assessment, the argument that middle-aged adults are, on average, less intelligent than young adults, is addressed in this study. A sample of 228 educated adults between ages 21 and 62 years was given an array of tests that focused on a broad assessment of intelligence-as-knowledge, traditional estimates of fluid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc), personality, and interests. The results indicate that middle-aged adults are more knowledgeable in many domains, compared with younger adults. A coherent pattern of ability, personality, and interest relations is found. The results are consistent with a developmental perspective of intelligence that includes both traditional ability and non-ability determinants of intelligence during adulthood. A reassessment of the nature of intelligence in adulthood is provided, in the context of a lifelong learning and investment model, called PPIK, for intelligence-as-Process, Personality, Interests, and intelligence-as-Knowledge (Ackerman, 1996).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geronb/55.2.p69

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • People choose domains in which to invest time, energy, and cognitive resources to gain knowledge and experience.

    “Individuals select particular areas in which they invest time, energy, and cognitive resources to gain knowledge and experience”
  • Studies published since Ackerman and Heggestad's meta-analysis suggest a negative relationship between extraversion and intelligence.

    “Several studies (Ackerman, 2000; Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999; Furnham, Forde, & Cotter, 1998; Roberts, 2002; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999) since the meta-analysis suggest the opposite trend – a negative relationship between extraversion and intelligence.”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Ackerman, 2000

  • In a sample of 228 students, social closeness was significantly negatively correlated with four knowledge composites (Business/law, Civics, Humanities, and Science) and with crystallized intelligence.

    “As seen in Table 3, results from a sample of 228 students demonstrated that social closeness was significantly negatively correlated with four knowledge composites (Business/law, Civics, Humanities, and Science) and with crystallized intelligence.”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Ackerman, 2000

  • 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, 2000

  • Broad measures of extraversion, such as those derived from the five factor model, may confound social closeness and social potency.

    “Ackerman (2000) addressed the contradictory nature of these findings by suggesting that broad measures of extraversion, such as those derived from the five factor model, may confound social closeness and social potency (also see Tellegen, 1982).”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Ackerman, 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ackerman, P. L.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Ackerman, P. L.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
Published
2000-03-01
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
P69-P84
ISSN
  • 1079-5014 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5368
OpenAlex
W2145997769
Cited by
206
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 11
FWCI
11.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series B (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (30332)
  • College of Computing
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG016648, 1R01AG16648-01)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (F49620)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Ego Development and Educational Practices
Keywords
adult intelligence, middle-aged adults, fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, domain knowledge, personality, interest, age differences in intelligence, lifelong learning, intelligence assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aging, Cognition, Culture, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Intelligence Tests, Male, Middle Aged, Personality

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