Do Investment Traits Intellectual Curiosity and Confidence Predict Academic Performance?

Abstract

Introductory chapters This thesis addresses the question, “Do investment traits intellectual curiosity and confidence predict academic performance?” To establish the context for this question, the first three chapters introduce several relevant issues. Chapter 1 provides an historical account of intelligence research, especially of Cattell’s identification of fluid and crystallised abilities, and his “investment theory” to explain their relationship. It also surveys Ackerman’s PPIK (Process, Personality, Interests, and Knowledge) theory of adult intelligence—also an investment theory—and considers whether there is sufficient evidence to continue researching intellectual curiosity (IC) within the investment framework. Important within investment theory are so-called “investment traits”—including IC—that determine where and how people apply their cognitive abilities. Chapter 2 introduces a second tradition of curiosity research, starting with Sokolov’s research on the “orienting reflex” and finishing with Mussel’s Intellect framework. It is argued that, despite their distinct histories, these approaches overlap substantially, and that this overlap has implications for how the relationship between intelligence and curiosity is to be understood. Finally, Chapter 3 introduces intelligence and personality as predictors of academic performance (AP), and introduces cognitive confidence as a potential investment trait that also predicts AP. Exegesis Chapter 4 provides an exegesis of the four studies that were conducted to assess the question of this thesis, and that are reported in Chapters 5–8. Study 1 assessed the contents of several different scales of IC, and concluded that despite their substantial overlap, each scale measured a different profile of factors. Study 2 assessed the incremental validity of IC and confidence above intelligence and personality for predicting AP, and could not find evidence for this. Study 3 assessed a novel approach to testing investment theory in adults, and found that confidence (but not IC) predicted variance above Gf in the measure of Gc. Moreover, this study assessed whether reading habits should be incorporated within Mussel’s Intellect framework, and concluded that this was not necessary. Lastly, Study 4 involved a critical analysis of von Stumm, Hell, et al. (2011)—who argued that IC is the “third pillar” of academic performance above cognitive ability and Conscientiousness—and argued that several issues call into question this broad conclusion. Conclusions Chapter 9 interprets these four studies in the broader context introduced in Chapters 1–3, and provides several conclusions. Concerning the thesis question, it is concluded that although there is substantial evidence for the predictive validity of IC and confidence for AP, the evidence for their incremental validity is mixed and cannot be asserted broadly with certainty. Concerning investment traits IC and confidence, it is concluded that the importance of IC may have been overestimated, whereas the importance of confidence may have been underestimated. And it is also concluded that investment theory needs to be revised substantially because of challenges to several predictions that follow from it. Following this, potential follow-up studies are outlined that potentially would help to resolve several outstanding issues in this domain. Finally, a concluding statement suggests that, despite traditionally being assessed as separate entities, the close relationship between intelligence and curiosity in infancy underscores the need to understand these variables together.