518074

research-article2014

PPSXXX10.1177/1745691613518074SchmidtA Commentary on Four Recent Articles

A General Theoretical Integrative Model

of Individual Differences in Interests,
Abilities, Personality Traits, and Academic
and Occupational Achievement: A
Commentary on Four Recent Articles

Perspectives on Psychological Science

2014, Vol. 9(2) 211218
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1745691613518074
pps.sagepub.com

Frank L. Schmidt
Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa

Abstract
This commentary integrates the contents of four recent articles on individual differences (Nye, Su, Rounds, & Drasgow,
2012; Schmidt, 2011; Valla & Ceci, 2011; von Stumm, Hell, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011) in a causal theoretical model.
In this model, introversion and fluid intelligence cause interest in general learning (intellectual curiosity), which in turn
is a major cause of crystallized intelligence. Certain specific interests and fluid intelligence also contribute to crystallized
intelligence. Prenatal testosterone hormone conditioning is postulated to cause sex differences in certain specific
interests but not in others. Crystallized intelligence, specific interests, and the personality trait of conscientiousness
cause adult academic and occupational performance, whereas crystallized intelligence is the main cause of good
mental functioning at older ages. Research is presented supporting each link in the model.
Keywords
individual differences, interests, abilities, personality, academic achievement, occupational achievement
This article attempts to integrate the substantive and theoretical questions addressed in four recent articles (Nye,
Sue, Rounds & Drasgow, 2012; Schmidt, 2011; Valla &
Ceci, 2011; and von Stumm, Hell, & Chamorro-Premuzic,
2011) that appeared in Perspectives on Psychological
Science. These four articles all focus on the effects of
interests, in conjunction with abilities, on academic and/
or occupational achievement. The goal is to place the
findings of these articles in the context of an overall theoretical model or theory that incorporates the findings of
these articles and related findings from the literature and
also clarifies the origins and effects of sex differences in
interests. The interests examined range from very general
(e.g., general intellectual curiosity) to those specific to
particular occupational groups (e.g., scientific, technical,
engineering, and math; STEM occupations). At the intermediate level of specificity, the most widely accepted
model for occupational interests is Hollands (1985, 1996)
model of six basic interest types: Realistic (e.g., police officer or carpenter), Investigative (e.g., scientist, researcher),
Artistic (e.g., poet, actor), Social (e.g., social worker, elementary school teacher), Enterprising (e.g., business

founder, entrepreneur), and Conventional (e.g., bookkeeper, administrative assistant). The level of specificity
of interests studied varies across the articles. The focus of
the von Stumm et al. article is on the broadest possible
interest (general interest in knowledge acquisition),
whereas the Nye et al. article examines all six of the
Holland interest types. The Valla and Ceci and Schmidt
articles fall in between these two in the level of specificity
of the interests they focus on. In terms of the Holland
interest model, the Valla and Ceci article focuses on
Investigative interests and the Schmidt article focuses on
Realistic interests. These two articles, unlike the other
two, focus on sex differences in occupational interests.
To set the stage for this integrative effort, I first summarize each of these articles, starting with the two studies
that examine sex differences in occupational interests.

Corresponding Author:
Frank L. Schmidt, Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa
City, IA. 52242
E-mail: frank-schmidt@uiowa.edu

Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Schmidt

212

Valla and Ceci (2011): Sex Differences

in STEM Interests and Abilities
Valla and Ceci critiqued the evidence in the literature
supporting brain organization theory. This theory holds
that developmental events during gestation (i.e., male
fetal exposure to testosterone) create sex differences in
brain lateralization that in turn produce sex differences in
two abilities (mathematical ability and spatial ability)
hypothesized to be critical for performance in STEM
areas. Valla and Ceci reviewed the evidence on sex differences in these abilities and found that the literature does
not support a sex difference in mean level of math ability.
However, the male distribution is more variable, causing
the individuals at the upper tail of the distribution to be
disproportionally male. (This is also true of the lower tail
of the distribution.) In the case of spatial abilities, Valla
and Ceci found that the literature indicates a substantial
male superiority in three-dimensional visualization but
not in two-dimensional spatial visualization. In the case
of memory for spatial location of objects in the environment, females are superior. Interestingly, they presented
no evidence that any of these forms of spatial ability contribute to success in STEM areas over and above the
effects of general mental ability (GMA; intelligence) or
other abilities. I have also never been able to locate such
evidence. So the evidence supporting the sex differences
in abilities predicted by brain organization theory is
mixed. This conclusion is consistent with those of Fine
(2010a, 2010b).
Valla and Ceci stated that some studies indicate that
prenatal testosterone exposure may affect interests and
preferences much more than it affects abilities:
In this scenario, androgenization of the brain might
tilt early preferred play toward spatial activities
(e.g., block-building and gross motor play) which
might foster later spatial and numerical achievement, as some sex difference research indicates
(Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009). (Valla & Ceci,
2011, p. 139)
They explored this idea in more detail later in the
article (pp. 140141), presented evidence for its plausibility, and stated that this evidence suggests that the influence of sex differences due to prenatal testosterone
exposure is not directly on ability, but emerges as a function of interest (p. 141).
This hypothesis is developed more fully in Ceci et al.
(2009). It may be that the main effect of prenatal hormones is on sex differences in interests and not on abilities. A much larger percentage of males are interested in
inanimate things (i.e., physical phenomena) rather than
people or other living things, and a much larger

percentage of females are interested in people and other

living beings rather than inanimate things. As shown in a
major meta-analysis, this difference is quite largealmost
1 standard deviation (d = .93; Su, Rounds, & Armstrong,
2009). This research is summarized in more detail in the
Schmidt article. This difference in interests is much larger
than the largest sex difference in the ability domain: the
difference on three-dimensional spatial rotation ability,
which ranges in various meta-analyses from .50 to .80
standard deviations (Valla & Ceci, 2011).

Schmidt (2011): Sex Differences in

Technical Aptitude
The Schmidt article focuses on the development of sex
differences in technical aptitude (as measured by tests of
mechanical and electrical aptitude). Technical aptitude is
viewed as one of many possible indicator variables for
GMA, along with verbal, quantitative, and other aptitude
measures. There is considerable evidence that in groups
in which there is no sex difference on other GMA indicator variables, there is a substantial sex difference favoring
males on measures of technical aptitude. This finding
leads to the hypothesis that technical aptitude measures,
used as GMA indicators, might lead to underestimation of
female GMA. This would be important because research
evidence shows that it is GMA that predicts job performance and that, after properly controlling for GMA, the
specific indicators of GMA make no additional contribution to job performance prediction. GMA as defined here
is identical to general crystallized intelligence as defined
in Cattells (1971, 1987) theory of intelligence (discussed
in the Fluid and crystallized intelligence section).
This article cites convincing research evidence showing
there is no overall sex difference in GMA, a finding that
was also confirmed in the data set used in that article.
Based on a very large sample, this study found that technical aptitude does underpredict female GMA, as hypothesized. Another way of stating this finding is this:
Technical aptitude tests used as indicator measures of
GMA overstate the relative general intelligence level of
males and understate that of females.
The Schmidt article presents a theory explaining the sex
difference in technical aptitude. This theory postulates that
the ultimate cause of lower average female technical aptitude scores is not any initial aptitude or ability difference
but rather a lifelong lower average female level of interest
in technical areas. In this theory, technical interests lead to
technical experiences (e.g., hobbies focusing on electrical
and mechanical pursuits and activities), which in turn
cause increased technical knowledge and results in higher
levels of technical aptitude. This process produces the
observed sex differences because the proportion of individuals with initial technical interests is larger among males

Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

A Commentary on Four Recent Articles

213

than among females. The Schmidt article does not postulate a neurological, gestational, or hormonal basis for this
sex difference in interests, as Valla and Ceci did, but it does
review the research evidence showing that it is difficult, if
not impossible, to change interests. The intuitive feeling of
many people is that interests are much easier to modify
than abilities, but the research evidence does not support
this intuition.
The similarity between the theory presented in Schmidt
and those presented in Valla and Ceci and Ceci et al.
(2009) is apparent. Each suggest that interests play an
important causal role in the development of knowledge,
skills, and aptitudes. This will be reflected in the integrative theory presented later.

Von Stumm et al. (2011): General

Intellectual Curiosity
Both Valla and Ceci and Schmidt focused on the effects
of specific or narrow interests on outcome areas that are
also specific or narrow. The focus in Valla and Cecis article is on the impact of interests on the development of
abilities or aptitudes believed to be important for success
in STEM fields. The Schmidt article focuses on the effect
of technical interests on the development of technical
knowledge and technical aptitude. The technical occupations (such as machinist, mechanical repairman, electrician, computer trouble shooter, etc.) can be viewed as
lower level versions of the STEM occupations. They can
also be viewed within the Holland interest model as
Realistic occupationsa category that is adjacent to, and
positively correlated with, Investigative occupations, the
category to which STEM occupations fall. In either case,
there is a similarity between STEM interests and technical
interests. The Von Stumm et al. article is very different
from these two articles: It focuses on what is probably
the most general of all interests, the general interest in
learning or knowledge acquisition. The term they use for
this interest is intellectual curiosity (also sometimes
referred to as need for cognition), but it can also be
viewed as a broad interest in general learningthe proclivity to seek knowledge in a wide variety of knowledge
areas. The correlation between measures of interest in
general knowledge acquisition such as Ackermans
Typical Intellectual Engagement (TIE) scale (Ackerman,
1999; Goff & Ackerman, 1992) and GMA suggests that
intelligence is one cause of TIE, but substantial variation
remains after controlling for GMA, no matter how it is
measured. So even among people with the same level of
GMA, there are wide variations in the level of this broadest of interests. As noted by von Stumm et al., the TIE
scale is the most widely used measure of this trait, and
subsequently I use TIE as the label for this interest.

Should TIE be viewed as a personality trait or as

the broadest of all possible interests? This distinction
is not an easy one and is of necessity somewhat arbitrary.
Personality in its broadest sense includes all traits
interests, traditional personality traits, abilities, values,
etc. All of these determine behavioral proclivities or propensities. For example, the personality trait of Conscien
tiousness causes a proclivity toward ordered planning,
organization, persistence, and achievement. Likewise the
trait of Extroversion causes a propensity toward gregariousness and social interaction in general. The categorization of TIE as an interest rather than a personality trait
stems from the concept of a continuum of specificity of
interests ranging from the most narrow and specific to
the most general. For example, if we start from a very
narrow interest in, say, knowledge of the biology of monarch butterflies, it is apparent that successive expansions
are possible in the direction of greater generality: knowledge of the biology of all insects, knowledge of the biology of insects and all other animals, knowledge of the
biology of all animals and plants, knowledge of the biology of all life forms, knowledge of nonliving things, and
ultimately, all forms of knowledge. As one moves along
this continuum of interests, one eventually arrives at the
most general point, which is interest in acquisition of
knowledge about almost everything. At each point on
the continuum, there is much variability among individuals, ranging from extreme interest to no interest at all.
This is just as true at the point of the broadest interest as
it is at the preceding, less general points.
The von Stumm et al. article reviews the literature on
TIE and the literature showing the effects of the traits of
Conscientiousness and GMA on academic performance.
The main focus of the von Stumm et al. article is on the
relative causal impacts of GMA, Conscientiousness, and
TIE on academic performance. Based on data compiled
from meta-analyses in the literature and from their own
meta-analysis of the relation between TIE and academic
performance, they test multiple path analysis models
(after correcting for biases caused by measurement error).
The model that is found to provide the best fit to the data
and to plausible theoretical assumptions is one in which
GMA, Conscientiousness, and TIE are all direct causes of
academic performance. The relative strengths (standardized path coefficients) are .35 for GMA, .20 for
Conscientiousness, and .20 for TIE. This finding shows
that the broad interest in general knowledge acquisition
exerts a causal effect on general academic performance
even after controlling for general intelligence and the
personality trait of Conscientiousness (the only personality trait found to correlate with academic performance).
What makes their findings important is the broad and
general nature of the dependent variable of academic

Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Schmidt

214
performance. This is not limited to particular subjects or
courses; it encompasses performance across all academic
subjects and courses. What this finding shows is that the
broadest of all possible interests has a causal impact on
the broadest of all measures of academic performance or
learning. This appears to be a strong test of the real world
relevance of a very broad interest measure.

The Nye, Su, Rounds, and Drasgow

(2012) Article: Holland Interests
and Academic and Occupational
Achievement
Like Valla and Ceci and Schmidt, the Nye et al. article
focuses on the impact of specific occupational interest categories, namely the six interest areas in the Holland model
(discussed earlier). The ultimate conclusion from their
meta-analysis is that interest in specific occupation types
predicts job performance and tenure in those occupations
and predicts academic performance and persistence in
areas of study related to those occupations. Further, they
show that an index of congruence (similarity) between
peoples strongest interests and the extent to which their
academic or work environment reflects and supports these
interests predicts academic and work performance and
persistence better than do the simple interest scale scores.
The correlations for the congruence measures are mostly
in the .20 to .35 range, whereas the correlations for individual interest scale scores (without reference to congruence) are lower, ranging from about .05 to .15. (The
authors correct all correlations for biases created by measurement error and range restriction.) Individuals attempt
to find and enter college majors, occupations, and specific

jobs that are most consistent with their strongest interests

(as measured intraindividually, i.e., ipsatively). The Nye
et al. article is methodologically and conceptually complex
and is a challenge to read. However, it is possible to summarize its main findings in a straightforward manner, as
done here.
The Nye et al. article focuses on both academic and
occupational performance, whereas the von Stumm et al.
article focuses only on academic performance. The von
Stumm et al. article shows that the broad interest in acquisition of general knowledge predicts general academic
performance (i.e., learning), even after controlling for
intelligence and the personality trait of Conscientiousness.
The Nye et al. study shows that interests in six specific
occupational areas predict (although weakly) both academic and occupational performance in those areas and
that this prediction is stronger when the academic or job
environment is consistent with the individuals strongest
interest.

A Proposed Integrative Theoretical

Model
Figure 1 shows my proposed integrative theoretical
model. As explained below, this theory combines and
integrates not only the contents of, and literature cited by,
Valla and Ceci, Schmidt, von Stumm et al., and Nye et al.,
but also: (a) the Ackerman (1999) findings showing a positive correlation between both Introversion and TIE and
acquisition of general knowledge over time, (b) Cattells
investment theory of intelligence with its constructs of
fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence (Cattell,
1971, 1987), (c) recent research showing that crystallized

Prenatal
Harmonal
Conditioning
Conscientiousness
Fluid
Intelligence
(gf)

Introversion

Interest in
General Learning
(TIE)

Specific
Interests
Adult Academic and
Occupational
Performance
Crystallized IntelligenceGeneral and Specific
Knowledge and Skills
(gc)

Fig. 1. A general integrative theoretical model for individual differences variables. (Variables are as defined in the text.)

Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Mental Functioning
at Older Ages

A Commentary on Four Recent Articles

215

intelligence is a much better predictor of real world

performances and achievement than fluid intelligence
(Postlethwaite, 2011), and (d) Goldbergs (2005) neuroscience based research and theory explaining how
people maintain high levels of intellectual and occupational performance long past ages at which fluid mental
ability has declined to relatively low levels. This scope
encompasses a large number of research literatures
across multiple areas of the psychology of individual
differences. An explanation of this theoretical model
follows.

Introversion, TIE, and acquisition of

general knowledge
In a large study of adults, Ackerman and his associates
(Ackerman, 1999; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; see also
Ackerman, 1996) presented evidence that Introversion
was positively correlated with TIE (or, alternatively, that
Extroversion was negatively correlated with TIE). They
also found that both Introversion and TIE are substantially positively correlated with level of general knowledge acquired over time. The knowledge measures used
varied widely and included (a) five tests in the physical
sciences and math; (b) five tests in the social sciences,
law, and business; (c) three tests in history and Western
civilization; (d) four tests in art and literature; and (e)
three tests in technology and tools. Both Introversion and
TIE were substantially positively correlated with scores
on each one of these 20 knowledge tests. To state this
dichotomously, introverts and high TIE people acquire a
higher level of generic knowledge over time than do
extroverts and low TIE people, possibly because they
spend more time reading, thinking, and reflecting, and
spend less time in social interactions. The average TIE
correlation with the 20 knowledge tests (mean r = .35) is
larger than the average correlation for Introversion (mean
r = .27). (Both these correlations are larger at the construct level because they have not been corrected for the
downward bias created by measurement error.) The relative size of these correlations is consistent with the model
in Figure 1, because in the model TIE is a direct cause of
crystallized intelligence whereas Introversion is an indirect cause, with its effect being mediated through TIE.
In the model shown in Figure 1, both Introversion and
fluid intelligence exert causal effects on TIE. A related
and theoretically relevant research finding is this: Interests
tend to be positively correlated and the general factor
underlying these intercorrelations correlates .48 with TIE
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997, p. 235). Scores on this
general factor reflect breath of interests, just as TIE does.
This research also found that this composite interest
score (general factor score) correlates positively and substantially with scores on each of the 20 knowledge tests,

with most values in the .30 to .35 range. The pattern of

correlations with knowledge scores is quite similar to that
of TIE. It is likely that a combination of TIE scores and
scores on this general interest factor is a better measure
of interest in general learning than the TIE scale alone. In
discussing the model in Figure 1, the TIE symbol is used
merely as a convenient label for interest in general learning. There is no evidence of a sex difference in TIE, and
the Roznowski (1987) study (summarized in Schmidt,
2011) provides evidence for the absence of a TIE sex difference. Based on a large sample, that study found that
the general level of knowledge acquisition over time is
the same for males and females, albeit the distribution of
acquisition across knowledge categories is different
between the sexes.

Fluid and crystallized intelligence

Fluid intelligence, TIE, and specific interests exert causal
influences on the development of crystallized intelligence, which is defined in Cattells investment theory as
acquired knowledge and skills. Crystallized intelligence
is a broad category; it includes skills such as math knowledge, mechanical knowledge, word knowledge, knowledge of history, and so on. Cattells theory states that
each individual has an initial level of fluid intelligence
(thought to be genetically and neurologically based),
and people invest their fluid ability in the development
of a wide variety of knowledge, skills, and aptitudes,
with these investments being guided by their interests,
both specific and general. TIE is the broadest of these
interests, and the specific interests include those examined in Nye et al., Schmidt, and Valla and Ceci. The
Schmidt article postulates that technical interests cause
technical knowledge and ultimately cause increases in
technical aptitude. Ackerman (1996, 1999; Ackerman &
Heggestad, 1997) presents evidence that three of the six
Holland interest types contribute to generic knowledge
acquisition: Investigative, Realistic, and Artistic interest
areas.

Sex differences in interests

As depicted in Figure 1, specific interestsat least some
of themare influenced in the case of males by prenatal
hormonal conditioning (exposure to testosterone), as
postulated by Valla and Ceci and Ceci et al. (2009). In
particular, prenatal hormonal conditioning predisposes
more males than females toward interest in inanimate
things (i.e., physical phenomena) and more females than
males toward interest in people and other living things.
The categories of things and people each encompass an
array of more specific interests. The broad area of interest
in inanimate things includes STEM-related interests (as

Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Schmidt

216
discussed in Valla and Ceci) and technical interests (as
discussed in Schmidt).

Academic and occupational

achievement
The theory postulates that the major determinant of adult
academic and occupational achievement is crystallized
intelligence. Postlethwaite (2011) recently presented considerable evidence, based on extensive meta-analyses,
that crystallized intelligence measures have considerably
higher validity than fluid ability measures for predicting
not only academic performance but also occupational
and job performance. Typically, fluid intelligence measures add little or nothing to prediction of either academic or job performance beyond the validity of
crystallized intelligence measures. This finding supports
the conclusion that acquired knowledge and mental skills
are superior to supposed measures of initial innate mental endowment in determining real world performances
and, more broadly, occupational success in life.
The other two variables exerting causal effects on
adult academic and occupational performance are the
personality trait of Conscientiousness and specific interests. The effect of specific occupational interests was
demonstrated in the Nye et al. (2012) study, which
showed that this effect is strongest when the individuals
strongest interests are matched with a work or academic
environment supportive of those interests. An example
would be someone with strong social interests finding
himself or herself in a social occupation such as K12
school teaching or social work. The causal impact of specific interests will be strong to the extent that people are
successful in finding college majors and work environments that match and support their strong specific occupational interests. The von Strum et al. article demonstrates
that Conscientiousness contributes to academic success,
controlling for the effects of intelligence and TIE. As
depicted in Figure 1, TIE exerts an indirect, rather than
direct, effect on academic (and work) success in the present theory, with its effect being mediated through crystallized intelligence. There is a large literature showing that
Conscientiousness predicts job and occupational performance, controlling for the effects of mental ability (e.g.,
see Schmidt, Shaffer, & Oh, 2008). Much of this research
is cited in von Stumm et al.
Finally, we have the neuroscience based research and
theory of Goldberg (2005). Goldberg operated within the
conceptual framework of Cattells theory of intelligence.
He was struck by the massive research evidence that
fluid intelligence, considered to be the ability basis for
learning in general, declines over time as the individual
ages and has declined fairly substantially by the time
people enter their 50s. At the same time he noted the

evidence that many, if not most, people achieve their

most important intellectual and occupational contributions after age 50 and often later. He set out to explain
this apparent contradiction. His research on skilled mental performances of people 50 and older supported the
conclusion that these achievements in middle age and
later are explained by the use of templates, mental strategies, or decision rules or patterns that were built up and
stored gradually over time; that is, these achievements
are made possible by use of accumulated crystallized
intelligence skills that had originally required fluid mental ability for their acquisition but now operate independently of current levels of fluid intelligence. The story in
his theory is one of using fluid intelligence over a lifetime
to build up skills, knowledge, and problem-solving strategies based on pattern recognition that constitute expertise that can be successfully employed well into older
ages and long after fluid intelligence had declined markedly. Knowledge, skills, and strategies are all forms of
crystallized intelligence within the framework of Cattells
theory. Thus the theoretical model in Figure 1 indicates
that the key determinant of level of mental functioning as
an older adult is crystallized intelligence. This finding is
consistent with the research findings of Ackerman (1999)
and the results obtained by Postlethwaite (2011).

The Present Theoretical Integration

This theory accounts for many research findings in the
areas of personality, interests, mental abilities, knowledge
and skill acquisition, academic performance, job performance, and career success. However, it could perhaps be
criticized on grounds that it is not sufficiently parsimonious. But theoretical parsimony may have its limits when
the subject is as complex as the behavior and performance of humans. This theory may represent the maximum parsimony that is possible in the explanation of the
functioning of these complex individual differences
variables.
Causal models or theories of complex phenomena are
always approximations, but a model is useful if it captures the predominant flows of causality. Even then a
model can perhaps be extended to be more complete.
The present model intentionally considers only the case
of normal male levels of prenatal exposure to testosterone. It is possible that extreme levels of prenatal exposure produce not only an extreme orientation of interests
away from people and other living things and toward
inanimate objects and phenomena, but also the kind of
extreme introversion seen in autistics. It is possible that
subclinically autistic individuals tend to gravitate toward
the STEM fields. These ideas suggest a possible way in
which the model might be extended. Based on the findings of Ackerman and his associates (cited earlier), this

Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

A Commentary on Four Recent Articles

217

model postulates that introversion is a cause of TIE.

Another possibility is that TIE is a cause of introversion.
However, personality traits emerge and congeal at a
young age and are apparent in early childhood, whereas
TIE becomes apparent only somewhat later, perhaps
around age 8 at the earliest for some and around adolescence for most. So for that reason, there is probably a
stronger case for introversion being a cause of TIE.
However, this is a question for research.
In the model, no variables are postulated as causes or
precursors of fluid intelligence and Conscientiousness.
However, these variables do have causes. Studies in
behavior genetics have shown that both personality traits
and mental abilities (including fluid intelligence) are
strongly genetically influenced (cf. Bouchard, 1997a,
1997b; Bouchard & McGue, 1981; Holden, 1987). As
shown in Bouchard (1997a), this is also true of vocational
interests and attitudes toward work. In the case of the noncognitive traits, heritabilities are typically around .40. The
square root of the heritability is the correlation between
genes and the trait; the square root of .40 is .63a substantial correlation. Heritabilities are considerably higher
for mental abilities, typically in the .50 to .80 range. So
there are both genetic and environment precursors of
these traits, and these could be listed in the model. What
about the role of the individuals experience? It turns out
that experience itself is genetically influenced, because
people tend to create their own environments and experiences based on proclivities and propensities that are
genetically influenced (cf. Plomin & Bergman, 1991; Scarr,
1996; Scarr & McCartney, 1983). In the model presented
here, both TIE and specific interests are traits that lead
people to create the experiences that shape the amount
and type of crystallized intelligence the individual attains.
So there is a role in the model for experience.

Summary
This article integrates the findings of four recent articles
appearing in Perspectives on Psychological Science (Nye
et al., 2012; Schmidt, 2011; Valla & Ceci, 2011; von Stumm
et al., 2011) and related findings in the literature to produce
a general theoretical model of the causal relationships
among abilities, general and specific interests, and personality traits in the production of adult academic and occupational achievement and mental functioning in old age. The
theory postulates a causal process that explains the lower
representation of women in STEM occupations as being
caused by sex differences in interest in these occupations
and not by any difference in relevant abilities.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
authorship or the publication of this article.

References
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge.
Intelligence, 22, 227257.
Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Traits and knowledge as determinants
of learning and individual differences: Putting it all together.
In P. Ackerman, P. Kyllonen, & R. Roberts (Eds.), Learning
and individual differences (pp. 437462). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219245.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1997a). Genetic influences on mental abilities, personality, vocational interests, and work attitudes.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 12, 373395.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1997b). The genetics of personality. In
K. Blum & E. P. Noble (Eds.), Handbook of psychiatric
genetics (pp. 273296). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & McGue, M. (1981). Familial studies of
intelligence: A review. Science, 212, 10551059.
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and
action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and
action. New York, NY: North Holland.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Womens
underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218261.
Fine, C. (2010a). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society,
and neurosexism create difference. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton.
Fine, C. (2010b). From scanner to sound bite: Issues in interpreting and reporting sex differences in the brain. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 280283.
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence
relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537552.
Goldberg, E. (2005). The wisdom paradox: How your mind can
grow stronger as your brain grows older. New York, NY:
Gotham Books.
Holden, C. (1987). The genetics of personality. Science, 237,
598601.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of
vocational personalities and work environments. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typology.
American Psychologist, 51, 397406.
Nye, C., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational
interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over
60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
7, 384483.
Plomin, R., & Bergman, C. S. (1991). Nature and nurture: Genetic
influences on environmental measures. Behavioral &
Brain Sciences, 14, 373427.
Postlethwaite, B. E. (2011). Fluid ability, crystallized ability,
and performance across multiple domains: A meta-analysis
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Iowa,
Iowa City.

Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Schmidt

218
Rosnowski, M. (1987). Use of tests manifesting sex differences
as measures of intelligence: Implications for measurement
bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 480483.
Scarr, S. (1996). How people make their own environments:
Implications for parents and policy makers. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 2, 204228.
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their
own environments: A theory of genotypeEnvironmental
effects. Child Development, 54, 424435.
Schmidt, F. L. (2011). A theory of sex differences in technical aptitude and some supporting evidence. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 6, 560563. doi:10.1177/17456
91611419670
Schmidt, F. L., Shaffer, J. A., & Oh, I.-S. (2008). Increased
accuracy for range restriction corrections: Implications for

the role of personality and general mental ability in job

and training performance. Personnel Psychology, 61, 827
868.
Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things,
women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in
interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859884.
Valla, J. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2011). Can sex differences in science
be tied to the long reach of prenatal harmones? Brain organization theory, digit ratio (2D/4D), and sex differences in
preferences and cognition. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 6, 134146. doi:10.1177/1745691611400236
von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The
hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6, 574588. doi:10.1177/1745691611421204

Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015