This chapter differentiates intelligence and related constructs such as creativity and intellectual giftedness, which helps people to better understand each construct. Sternberg proposed a way to classify the various approaches to studying the intelligence-creativity relationship. Guilford’s Structure of the Intellect (SOI) model is probably the most explicit, with divergent thinking specifically identified as one of his five cognitive operations. The relationship between intelligence and giftedness has also received substantial attention. Every gifted education program has a formal assessment procedure to identify potential participants, and creativity assessments are often included in the battery of measures in these identification systems. The Marland Definition suggests that giftedness and talent are manifest in six areas: general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts, and psychomotor ability. It has been extremely influential and is still used by many school districts in their identification of talented students.

This chapter suggests some new directions that personality research is, or should be, taking as well as the future agenda of this research. In contrast, personality psychology provides us with a solid evidence base that people can lean on when searching for answers about human nature. Personality refers to the stable and consistent patterns we observe in how people behave, feel, and think. Associations between personality and intelligence have been found on the measurement level and hypothesized at a conceptual level. It is supposedly human nature not to trust humankind to provide the unselfish responses in questionnaires, or to possess an adequate level of self-awareness. Admittedly, this trend has been changing. An increasing number of organizations are using self-report personality measures and even laypeople seem to accept the notion of questionnaires more kindly than before.

The ideas of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato all contribute to the foundation of our understanding of the nature of human intelligence. Their ideas on topics as diverse as the origin of ability, the mind-body relationship, and general inquiry methods continued to inspire thinkers centuries later and influenced those who shaped modern psychology and intelligence theory. This chapter provides an overview of recent research on how people’s beliefs about intelligence impact their behaviors, a body of research that has significant implications for education. The emergence of reliable genetic and neurological research methodologies is creating a new area of study in which environmental, biological, and psychological facets of intelligence are studied simultaneously. Structure of Intellect (SOI) model represents a very different approach to theories of intelligence. Recent technological advances have encouraged explorations into the relationship between brain function and specific types of cognitive functioning.

Creativity and intelligence, like bacon and eggs, certainly seem like they should go together. But exactly how they do, or whether intelligence is part of creativity or creativity is part of intelligence, is still debated. At one point in time, a ‘threshold’ theory was popular, which argued that creativity and intelligence are positively related up until an IQ of approximately 120. Some studies have found that although creativity does predict GPA, other variables do it better or more directly, such as cognitive style, mental speed and short-term memory, or reasoning ability. An additional way of considering how creativity relates to intellectual abilities is to consider how creativity is connected to learning disabilities (LD). Another learning disability with a relationship to creativity is Williams syndrome. Healey and Rucklidge found that although 40” of a creative group showed symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), none met the level for actual diagnosis.

This chapter discusses five topics: cultural stimulation, interactive relationships, collaborative groups, disciplinary zeitgeist, and sociocultural context. It discusses how the individual and social levels of analysis can be integrated into a unified sociopsychological conception of genius. Individuals were creatures of culture rather than slaves to their genes, and peoples were ethnic groups rather than biological races. When delineating the various contemporary relationships that can augment genius, the author included collaborative interactions. Genius is heavily contingent on the availability of predecessor geniuses who can serve as role models and mentors. This cross-generational influence is then amplified or dampened by other factors, such as political fragmentation, civil disturbances, and political anarchy. Contemporaries and compatriots may display equal magnitudes of genius and yet exhibit that genius in contrasting domains of achievement. The level and type of genius is determined by numerous variables that are inherent in the individual human being.

This chapter describes the main causal theories of personality, which deal with the question of why, that is, why people differ in various ways. It addresses the question of personality change and development, that is, whether people can change, and if so, the extent to which they actually do. The chapter also discusses the main factors that contribute to change. To tackle the question of why personality differences between people exist, psychologists have generally occupied three different fields of investigation: the genetic, the biochemical, and the evolutionary. Behavioral genetics is an area of psychology concerned with the assessment of the relative contribution of genetic and nongenetic influences on various individual variables of difference, including personality, intelligence, and psychological disorders. Behavioral geneticists distinguish between two types of environment: shared environment and nonshared environment. The structure of temperaments seems to differ from the adult personality structure.

James Flynn has found that people living in the United States were gaining a little more than 3 points per decade on tests of human intelligence. IQ is a relative score provides information about a person’s performance in comparison with other individuals of the same age who took an IQ test. The substantially greater gains in fluid versus crystallized intelligence led Flynn to conclude that the Flynn Effect (FE) was caused by a societal shift from concrete to abstract thinking. When Flynn compared children’s performance on the older and newer tests, he was comparing apples to oranges. The FE is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon of inherent intellectual interest to psychologists and others who are intrigued by the human capacity for growth and change. The role of environmental support in developing intelligence has important implications for education and parenting, providing empirical basis for intervention programs.

Individuals have beliefs and judgments about their ability to successfully complete an activity or task. In the motivation world, people call these expectations. In addition to expectations, people also have a value system associated with the expectation. Modern versions of expectancy value (EV) are still descendants of Atkinson’s work and are based on achievement performance, persistence, and choice. Within the task-value beliefs there are four components: attainment value, intrinsic (interest enjoyment) value, utility value, and cost. There are emotional components to success and failure or even the expectancy of the two. In addition to the poor performance, people tend to try and avoid making a mistake, quit early, and lose interest rapidly. This pattern, fear of failure leading to performance-avoidance goals, leads to poor adjustment skills and anxiety. Related to the performance and mastery concepts is an implicit theory of intelligence.

Geniuses have been around for a very long time. Genuine scientific inquiries into the psychology of genius came much later. The investigators engaged in these inquiries adopted two main approaches: psychometrics and historiometrics. Not only was Francis Galton the first psychometrician to study genius, but he himself was a genius. Psychometric research represents the most common way that research psychologists investigate genius. The principal alternative is a technique known as historiometrics. Frederick Woods also conducted historiometric research of his own. In 1906, he had studied the inheritance of intellectual and moral genius in royal families, and in 1913 he examined the influence of political genius on the welfare of the nations ruled. Lewis M. Terman had also explored a method of calculating intelligence quotient (IQ) scores using historiometric methods. Unlike psychometrics and historiometrics, psychobiography constitutes a single-case qualitative approach.