ArticleNPJ science of learning2024
Taking another look at intelligence and personality using an eye-tracking approach.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attentional Dynamics During Emotional Face Processing Differentiate Alexithymia From Mood and Affective Symptoms.Journal of personality · 2026Article
- Personality and good business judgement: the bright and dark side of business reasoning.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Measuring Raven's Progressive Matrices Combining Eye-Tracking Technology and Machine Learning (ML) Models.Journal of Intelligence · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intelligence and personality are both key drivers of learning. This study extends prior research on intelligence and personality by adopting a behavioral-process-related eye-tracking approach. We tested 182 adults on fluid intelligence and the Big Five personality traits. Eye-tracking information (gaze patterns) was recorded while participants completed the intelligence test. Machine learning models showed that personality explained 3.18% of the variance in intelligence test scores, with Openness and, surprisingly, Agreeableness most meaningfully contributing to the prediction. Facet-level measures of personality explained a larger amount of variance (7.67%) in intelligence test scores than the trait-level measures, with the largest coefficients obtained for Ideas and Values (Openness) and Compliance and Trust (Agreeableness). Gaze patterns explained a substantial amount of variance in intelligence test performance (35.91%). Gaze patterns were unrelated to the Big Five personality traits, but some of the facets (especially Self-Consciousness from Neuroticism and Assertiveness from Extraversion) were related to gaze. Gaze patterns reflected the test-solving strategies described in the literature (constructive matching, response elimination) to some extent. A combined feature vector consisting of gaze-based predictions and personality traits explained 37.50% of the variance in intelligence test performance, with significant unique contributions from both personality and gaze patterns. A model that included personality facets and gaze explained 38.02% of the variance in intelligence test performance. Although behavioral data thus clearly outperformed "traditional" psychological measures (Big Five personality) in predicting intelligence test performance, our results also underscore the independent contributions of personality and gaze patterns in predicting intelligence test performance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.