Personality and Individual Differences 6162 (2014) 6368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Impulsivity, intelligence, and academic performance: Testing

the interaction hypothesis
J.H. Lozano , F. Gordillo, M.A. Prez
Camilo Jos Cela University, Faculty of Health Sciences (Department of Psychology), Castillo de Alarcn, 49, Villafranca del Castillo, 28692 Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 September 2013
Received in revised form 23 December 2013
Accepted 3 January 2014
Available online 4 February 2014
Keywords:
Impulsivity
Intelligence
Academic performance
Interaction
Latent variables

a b s t r a c t
Previous research suggests a moderator effect of intelligence on the relationship between impulsivity and
academic achievement. However, the interaction hypothesis has not been adequately tested so far. The
present study was aimed to analyze the interrelations between impulsivity, intelligence, and academic
performance, with special interest in testing the interaction effect between impulsivity and intelligence
in the prediction of performance. To that end, 174 university students, aged from 18 to 37 years, were
tested. Analyses were carried out at the latent level in order to minimize measurement error and to
increase statistical power. The main ndings of the study show that: (a) impulsivity was negatively related
to both academic performance and intelligence; (b) intelligence was positively related to academic
performance; (c) impulsivity and intelligence contributed signicantly and independently to predict
and explain academic performance; and (d) there was a signicant interaction effect between impulsivity
and intelligence in predicting academic performance, such that impulsivity was more strongly associated
with performance among the more intelligent students than among the less intelligent ones.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The prediction of academic achievement constitutes one of the
most important research topics in Psychology. Among all the candidates to predict academic performance, intelligence has revealed
as the most effective single predictor (Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones,
2004). However, recent research suggest that personality measures
may be equally effective (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003;
Colom, Escorial, Shih, & Privado, 2007; Duckworth & Seligman,
2005; Laidra, Pullmann, & Allik, 2007). Within this framework,
one personality measure that is increasingly receiving more
attention is impulsivity (Frick et al., 1991; Spinella & Milley,
2003; Vigil-Colet & Morales-Vives, 2005).
1.1. Impulsivity, intelligence, and academic performance
There are several studies in which impulsivity has been found
to be related to low academic achievement (Frick et al., 1991;
Spinella & Milley, 2003; Vigil-Colet & Morales-Vives, 2005).
Additionally, impulsivity seems to be moderately and negatively
related to reasoning (Schweizer, 2002) and intelligence (Corr &
Kumari, 1998; De Wit, Flory, Acheson, McCloskey, & Manuck,
2007; Harmon-Jones, Barratt, & Wigg, 1997; Kuntsi et al., 2004;
Lynam, Moftt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1993; Russo, De Pascalis,
Varriale, & Barratt, 2008; Vigil-Colet & Morales-Vives, 2005).
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 815 31 31x1644.
E-mail address: jhlozano@ucjc.edu (J.H. Lozano).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.013

Although the correlational methodology employed in the above

mentioned studies does not allow for any causal interpretation,
one possible explanation for the bivariate interrelations among
impulsivity, intelligence, and academic achievement may reside
in the individual differences in the tendency to discount delayed
rewards. Impulsivity entails a tendency to discount rewards
that are delayed in time in favor of immediate gratication
(Ostaszewski, 1996; Richards, Zhang, Mitchell, & de Witt, 1999).
In addition, intelligence is negatively associated to such tendency
(Shamosh & Gray, 2008; Shamosh et al., 2008); that is, the more
intelligent person tends to seek further into consequences of his
or her behavior. The educational process, in this regard, may be
viewed as a long-term goal-oriented undertaking, which may be
undermined by the tendency to act on immediate demands characteristic of impulsive and less intelligent individuals (Spinella &
Milley, 2003). Nevertheless, other alternative or complementary
explanations are also possible. As Zeidner posited (1995), it also
may be argued that a student of low intelligence may experience
more frustration in the educational process, developing an
aggressive and impulsive attitude. Moreover, children with low
intelligence likely have parents with low intelligence, who may
provide poorer conditions and less discipline.
At the biological level, the link between impulsivity, intelligence,
and academic achievement may be reecting their biological
substrates in the prefrontal cortex (Shamosh et al., 2008). Impulse
inhibition and reward-delaying behavior have been associated with
the functioning of prefrontal cortex and associated subcortical
structures (Bunge & Zelazo, 2006; Shamosh et al., 2008). The

64

J.H. Lozano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 6162 (2014) 6368

prefrontal cortex is also responsible for working memory capacity

and abstract reasoning (Kane & Engle, 2002). Individual differences
in the structure, development, and function of the prefrontal cortex,
therefore, may well underlie the covariance among impulsivity,
intelligence, and educational achievement.
1.2. The interaction hypothesis
Although many authors have postulated that personality and
intelligence interact with each other to inuence the development
of knowledge and performance (Ackerman, 1996; Cattell, 1987;
Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006; Jensen, 1998; Matthews,
1999), empirical research in this regard has been rare.
Nevertheless, recent studies have shown that the relationship
between personality and academic achievement may be moderated by the individuals level of ability (Beaujean et al., 2011;
Heaven & Ciarrochi, 2012; Ziegler, Knogler, & Bhner, 2009).
Regarding the constructs of interest for this study, past and recent research suggest a moderator effect of intelligence on the relationship between impulsivity and academic performance (Kipnis,
1965; Kipnis & Resnick, 1971; Vigil-Colet & Morales-Vives, 2005).
The relationship between impulsivity and academic performance
seems to be much clearer for bright students than for less intelligent students, to the extent that, in certain instances, among less
intelligent students the relationship does not hold (Kipnis, 1965;
Kipnis & Resnick, 1971). Such a moderator effect has also been observed in discrimination learning performance (Lozano & Prez,
2012). However, in this case, impulsivity seems to be detrimental
to performance only in individuals with lower intelligence scores.
According to Vigil-Colet and Morales-Vives (2005), impulsivity
may act as a moderator variable in the relationship between
intelligence and achievement. Based on the investment theory
(Cattell, 1987), impulsivity is supposed to moderate the way in
which people invest their cognitive resources to produce achievements (see also Ackerman, 1996; Jensen, 1998). Such an approach
have found support in studies in which measures of impulsivity
showed higher correlation values with measures of crystallized
intelligence (Gc) and academic performance than with measures
of uid intelligence (Gf) (Lynam et al., 1993; Vigil-Colet &
Morales-Vives, 2005).
Nevertheless, the interaction hypothesis has not been adequately tested so far. To our knowledge, we do not know any study
in which the interaction term between impulsivity and intelligence
had been included in the analyses. Furthermore, most of the available studies suffer from some serious limitations derived from a
bivariate approach based on the analysis of correlations. In this
regard, the capacity of impulsivity to predict academic performance is rarely tested controlling for the effect of intelligence.
The interrelations among the constructs may also be somewhat
misrepresented because specic task variance. This may be especially critical in the case of measures of academic performance,
which do not necessarily meet psychometric standards of reliability, validity, and absence of bias. Besides, measurement error becomes a major issue when it comes to detect moderator effects.
Errors in measuring the predictors are exacerbated when they
are multiplied to form a product term, which entails a drop in
statistical power (McClelland & Judd, 1993). This kind of methodological problems can be ameliorated through a latent variable approach (Kenny & Judd, 1984).
1.3. The present study
The aim of the present study was to analyze the interrelationships between impulsivity, intelligence, and academic performance in university students, paying special attention to the
potential interaction between impulsivity and intelligence in the

prediction of academic performance. To that end, analyses were

carried out at the latent level using structural equation modeling.
Thus, the specic variance associated with the individual measures
was removed, considering only the common variance underlying
measures of the same construct. Such an approach derives in a
decrease of measurement error and an increase in statistical
power.
In light of all the above, the hypotheses for this study were as
follows: (1) impulsivity is negatively correlated with intelligence
and academic performance; (2) intelligence is positively correlated
with academic performance; (3) impulsivity predicts academic
performance signicantly and independently of intelligence; and
(4) impulsivity and intelligence interact with each other in predicting academic performance.
2. Method
2.1. Sample
The sample was comprised of a total of 174 Psychology undergraduates, 53 men (30.5%) and 121 women (69.5%). Participants
ranged in age from 18 to 37 years-old (Women: M = 20.407,
SD = 3.211; Men: M = 21.600, SD = 4.086). Participation in this
study was among the activities of an academic course.
2.2. Materials
Barratts Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11; Oquendo et al., 2001): Spanish adaptation of the Barratts Impulsivity Scale. It is a 30-item
questionnaire that measures three different components of impulsiveness: Motor Impulsiveness (BIS-M), which reects the tendency to act without thinking; Cognitive Impulsiveness (BIS-C),
characterized by making quick cognitive decisions on the spur of
the moment; and Non-Planning Impulsiveness (BIS-NP), which reects a present orientation and a lack of planning for the future.
The reliability and validity of the BIS have been repeatedly demonstrated in a variety of languages (Fossati, Di Ceglie, Acquarini, &
Barratt, 2001; Oquendo et al., 2001; Patton, Stanford, & Barratt,
1995; Someya et al., 2001).
Primary Mental Abilities (Test de Aptitudes Mentales Primarias
PMA; Thurstone & Thurstone, 1999): Spanish adaptation of the test
developed by L. L. Thurstone. The test includes ve subscales
assessing several different abilities: Verbal (PMA-V), the ability to
comprehend verbal statements; Spatial (PMA-S), the ability to reason about gural representations; Reasoning (PMA-R), the ability
to identify patterns; Numerical (PMA-N), the ability to do relatively
simple computations quickly; and Verbal Fluency (PMA-VF), the
ability to produce simple words rapidly. The PMA has demonstrated adequate reliability (testretest: .73 for PMA-S and PMAVF; split-half: .91 for PMA-V, .92 for PMA-R, and .99 for PMA-N)
and validity.
Academic performance (AP) was measured by the students
grades in four courses of the degree in Psychology: Psychometrics
(AP-PS), Psychology of Attention (AP-AT), Psychology of Learning
(AP-LE), and History of Psychology (AP-HI). These subjects were
specically chosen from the academic program according to the
following criteria: (a) the subjects were compulsory, so that all participants should have done them; (b) the subjects corresponded to
different domains, and required verbal (e.g., History of Psychology)
as well as numerical (e.g., Psychometrics) abilities; (c) performance
in the subjects was assessed based on continuous work throughout
the course as well as procedural and theoretical examination; (d)
the grades were exclusively based on individual performance;
and (e) the percentage of missing values was below 10% for each
subject.

65

J.H. Lozano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 6162 (2014) 6368

2.3. Procedure

(PMA-VF), formed the latent variable Intelligence (G); and the

shared variance among the grades in the subjects Psychometrics
(AP-PS), Psychology of Attention (AP-AT), Psychology of Learning
(AP-LE), and History of Psychology (AP-HI), formed the latent variable Academic Performance (AP).
Prior to tting the hypothesized model, the measurement
model was tested in order to obtain the zero-order correlations
(Fig. 1). The t of Model 1 was appropriate [v251 75:195, CMIN/
df = 1.474, p = .015; CFI = .919; RMSEA = .052]. It is worth noting
that a signicant v2 value does not necessarily indicate poor t,
given that the v2 value is sensitive to sample size (Kline, 2011).
As expected, the correlation values of impulsivity with academic
performance and intelligence were negative and statistically signicant (.416 and .391, respectively; both p < .01), whereas
the correlation between intelligence and academic performance
was positive and signicant (.440, p < .01).
Next, a structural model was established (Model 2), in which
impulsivity and intelligence predicted academic performance
(Fig. 2). The t of Model 2 was identical to that in Model 1. The
standardized structural coefcients for impulsivity and intelligence were .288 and .327, respectively (both p < .05). The model
accounted for 26.4% of the variance in academic performance.
These results indicate that both, impulsivity and intelligence, contributed signicantly and independently to predict and explain
academic performance.
Finally, a third model was tested (Model 3), in which the interaction term between the latent variables IMP and G was added as a
predictor of academic performance (Fig. 3). In order to compare the
t of models 2 and 3, a chi-square difference test based on log-likelihood values and scaling correction factors was performed. The
test yielded a signicant result, indicating that the inclusion of
the interaction term led to a signicant improvement in t
[TRd(1) = 11.208, p < .001]. The standardized structural coefcient
for the interaction term was also signicant (bIMPG = .213,
p < .05). The model accounted for 30% of the variance in academic
performance. Thus, the inclusion of the interaction term in the
model contributed to explain an additional 3.6% of the variance
(DR2 = .036).
Figure 4a (left) depicts the moderator effect of intelligence on
the relationship between impulsivity and academic performance.
The regression slopes indicate that the relationship of impulsivity
to academic performance was not the same at different levels of
ability. More concretely, the relationship became stronger the higher the level of intelligence, being almost zero for the lower level. In
order to discard a oor effect in performance for the low

Participants individually completed a battery of personality and

ability tests, including those needed to conduct this research. The
tests were administered in groups of 30 participants. The assessment lasted approximately 2 h, during which time participants
were not allowed to communicate with one another. A 10-min
break took place approximately halfway through the session in order to prevent fatigue. The PMA was administered in the rst place,
whereas the BIS was administered at the end of the session.
2.4. Data analysis
Analyses were conducted using Mplus 4.1 with MLR estimator
(Muthn & Muthn, 2006). Missing values constituted 6.4% of the
whole data and were modeled with Full Information Maximum
Likelihood (FIML). Given that the study hypotheses were directional, all the reported critical values for regression coefcients
and correlations were calculated as one-tailed in order to increase
statistical power.
3. Results
Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations are shown in
Table 1. Measures met standard criteria for univariate normality,
with skewness values less than 3 and kurtosis values less than
10 (Kline, 2011). The normalized Mardias coefcient (1.014 < 5)
did not reveal departures from multivariate normality (Bentler,
2005).
Model t was assessed using the following t indices: the
CMIN/df, with values below 2 considered indicative of good t
(Jreskog, 1993); the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), with values
above .90 considered indicative of acceptable t (Bentler, 1992);
and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), with
values between 0 and 0.5 indicative of good t, between 0.5 and
0.8 indicative of acceptable t, between 0.8 and 1 indicative of
mediocre t, and above 1 indicative of poor t (MacCallum,
Browne, & Sugawara, 1996).
The measurement model (Model 1) comprised three latent variables with their respective indicators: the shared variance among
the BIS subscales, Cognitive Impulsivity (BIS-C), Motor Impulsivity
(BIS-M), and Non-Planned Impulsivity (BIS-NP), formed the latent
variable Impulsivity (IMP); the shared variance among the PMA
subscales, Verbal Ability (PMA-V), Spatial Ability (PMA-S), Reasoning (PMA-R), Numerical Ability (PMA-N), and Verbal Fluency

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlation matrix for the indicators of impulsivity (BIS), intelligence (PMA), and academic performance (AP): BIS-C (Cognitive); BIS-M
(Motor); BIS-NP (Non-Planned); PMA-V (Verbal Ability); PMA-S (Spatial Ability); PMA-R (Reasoning); PMA-N (Numerical Ability); PMA-FV (Verbal Fluency); AP-PS
(Psychometrics); AP-AT (Psychology of Attention); AP-AP (Psychology of Learning); AP-HI (History of Psychology).
1
1. BIS-C
2. BIS-M
3. BIN-NP
4. PMA-V
5. PMA-S
6. PMA-R
7. PMA-N
8. PMA-FV
9. AP-PS
10. AP-AT
11. AP-AP
12. AP-HI
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis

15.179
4.145
.133
.266

10

11

12

.465

3
.252
.196

4
.110
.003
.121

5
.213
.174
.039
.310

6
.245
.147
.063
.284
.422

7
.244
.187
.058
.134
.128
.284

8
.054
.070
.056
.253
.136
.280
.074

.118
.007
.001
.042
.159
.289
.010
.091

.287
.283
.081
.129
.194
.209
.239
.256
.463

.180
.151
.149
.116
.251
.160
.106
.288
.313
.580

.099
.145
.040
.228
.123
.091
.047
.196
.218
.454
.384

16.121
6.462
.473
.144

16.735
6.586
.507
.589

24.779
5.926
.153
.079

22.011
11.937
.072
.345

18.040
4.709
.341
.037

13.776
5.836
.094
.238

46.305
9.000
.310
.424

3.438
1.996
.129
.341

4.268
1.869
.050
.253

4.646
2.085
.016
.512

5.549
1.505
.655
.230

66

J.H. Lozano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 6162 (2014) 6368

were not signicantly different for the three groups [Levenes statistic (2, 171) = 1.502, p = .226]. Likewise, Fig. 4b (right) depicts
the moderator effect of impulsivity on the relationship between
intelligence and academic performance. Again, the three slopes
indicate that the relationship of intelligence to academic performance was not the same at different levels of impulsivity. In this
case, the relationship between intelligence and performance
became stronger the lower the level of impulsivity.
In order to nd out what can be expected at a practical level of
the measures of ability and impulsivity used in this study as
predictors of academic performance, a hierarchical regression
analysis was conducted taken composite observed variables of
intelligence and impulsivity as predictors and a composite observed variable of academic performance as the response variable.
Intelligence was entered into the regression equation in the rst
block (R2 = .115, p < .0005), followed by impulsivity in the second
block (DR2 = .028, p < .05). The inclusion of the interaction term
in the third block only contributed to explain an additional and
non-signicant 1% of the variance (DR2 = .009, p = 183).

4. Discussion

Fig. 1. Measurement model (Model 1).

intelligence group, a Levenes test for homogeneity of variances was

performed. The results indicated that the variances in performance

The present study was aimed to analyze the interrelations

between impulsivity, intelligence, and academic performance, with
special interest in testing the interaction effect between impulsivity and intelligence in the prediction of academic performance.
Latent variable models were used in trying to address methodological limitations of previous studies. The results from this study suggest four main ndings. First, impulsivity was negatively related to

Fig. 2. Structural equation model (Model 2).

Fig. 3. Structural equation model with latent variables interaction (Model 3).

J.H. Lozano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 6162 (2014) 6368

67

Fig. 4. (a) Regression lines of academic performance on impulsivity at different levels of intelligence (G): High (one standard deviation above the mean), Medium (mean), and
Low (one standard deviation below the mean). (b) Regression lines of academic performance on intelligence at different levels of impulsivity (IMP): High (one standard
deviation above the mean), Medium (mean), and Low (one standard deviation below the mean).

academic performance and intelligence. Second, intelligence was

positively related to academic performance. Third, impulsivity
and intelligence contributed signicantly and independently to
predict and explain academic performance. And four, there was a
signicant interaction effect between impulsivity and intelligence
in predicting academic performance, so that impulsivity was more
strongly associated with performance among the more intelligent
students than among the less intelligent ones.
Our results substantiate previous ndings in which impulsivity
was found to be signicantly and negatively related to intelligence
and academic achievement (Corr & Kumari, 1998; De Wit et al.,
2007; Frick et al., 1991; Harmon-Jones et al., 1997; Kuntsi et al.,
2004; Lynam et al., 1993; Russo et al., 2008; Schweizer, 2002;
Spinella & Milley, 2003; Vigil-Colet & Morales-Vives, 2005). Furthermore, the present study shows how impulsivity contributed
signicant unique variance to the prediction of academic
performance above and beyond that accounted for by intelligence.
This result, therefore, goes in line with previous studies which
emphasize the contribution of personality to predict and explain
educational achievement (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003;
Colom et al., 2007; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Laidra et al.,
2007).
According to the obtained results, the strength of the relationship between impulsivity and academic performance is not the
same at different levels of intelligence. Impulsivity seems to be
more strongly associated with academic performance among
bright students than among less intelligent students. Furthermore,
at low levels of intelligence, the relationship is almost non-existent. These results extend and conrm previous observations that
suggested a potential interaction between impulsivity and ability
in predicting academic achievement (Kipnis, 1965; Kipnis &
Resnick, 1971; Vigil-Colet & Morales-Vives, 2005). Results also go
in line with recent research that shows a moderator effect of ability
on the relationship between personality measures and achievement (Beaujean et al., 2011; Heaven & Ciarrochi, 2012; Ziegler
et al., 2009). Although, the bases for the observed interaction are
not completely clear, our results suggest that a low IQ alone may
explain poor academic achievement without appealing to constructs other than ability. However, at high levels of intelligence,
other constructs, like impulsivity, may be necessary to explain
why individuals who could be academically successful actually
underachieve. It is noteworthy to point out that the low regression
slope observed for the low-intelligence group is not attributable to
a oor effect in performance in that group or to heteroscedasticity
issues.
Alternatively, the consideration of impulsivity as the moderator
variable on the relationship between intelligence and academic

performance is equally sustainable. Vigil-Colet and Morales-Vives

(2005) interpreted this moderator effect in the framework of
Cattells investment theory (Cattell, 1987). From this view, impulsivity moderates the way in which individuals invest their cognitive
resources to produce academic achievement. Our results also substantiate this interpretation, insofar as the relationship between
intelligence and performance became stronger the lower the level
of impulsivity. However, in light of the investment theory, impulsivity would also be expected to be more correlated with measures
of achievement (i.e., academic performance and Gc) than with measures of Gf. Conversely, in our study, impulsivity measures showed
higher correlation values with measures closer to Gf (i.e., reasoning
and spatial abilities) than with measures closer to Gc (i.e., verbal
and numerical abilities), thus, contradicting an explanation for
the moderator effect based on the investment theory.
Regarding constructs other than academic achievement, Lozano
and Prez (2012) observed that intelligence also moderated the
relationship between impulsivity and discrimination learning
performance. However, in that study, impulsivity affected performance only in individuals with low intelligence scores. The results
of that and the present study suggest that the nature of the interaction between ability and impulsivity may not be the same for different performance contexts. In this regard, it may be worth
studying whether the interaction may depend on the type of ability
required and/or on the way performance is measured (e.g., typical
versus maximum performance).
It is also worth to mention that a certain range restriction may
exist for impulsivity and intelligence measures in our sample. The
selection imposed by the educational system may progressively reduce the presence of impulsive and less intelligent individuals
throughout the educational levels. As a consequence, our results,
based on a sample of university students, may not be generalizable
to other levels of the educational system (e.g., the observed effects
might be even stronger in a less range restricted sample composed
by K-12 students). Nevertheless, it is of interest to conduct research separately for different levels of the educational system, given that personality, intelligence, and academic achievement are
related in a manner that may change with age (Eysenck, 1994).
Our results also point out the practical limitations of the measures
used in this study to capture the interaction between impulsivity
and intelligence at the observed level. In this regard, it may be
worthwhile to conduct new studies aimed at identifying more
appropriate instruments in order to improve the detection of cases
with risk of academic failure. Another limitation of the present
study is that the used measures of academic performance may
not be representative of achievement in other elds of knowledge.
Thus, it would be necessary to replicate our ndings by using

68

J.H. Lozano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 6162 (2014) 6368

samples of students from different degrees. Finally, the sample size

for both sexes was not balanced. Given that research on impulsivity have shown that men are more impulsive than women (Cross,
Copping, & Campbell, 2011), future studies using larger and more
balanced sample sizes are recommended in order to test the interaction hypothesis for men and women separately.
Although a higher volume of research is needed to replicate and
better understand our ndings before coming to denite
conclusions, the results of this study suggest direct practical
implications. The addition of impulsivity tests to the batteries of
instruments usually employed in psycho-educational assessment
may help to identify cases with high risk of academic failure
among the more intelligent individuals, as well as to implement
preventive interventions.

References
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process,
personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227257. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1.
Beaujean, A. A., Firmin, M. W., Attai, S., Johnson, C. B., Firmin, R. L., & Mena, K. E.
(2011). Using personality and cognitive ability to predict academic achievement
in a young adult sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 709714.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.023.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the t of models to covariances and methodology to the
Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.112.3.400.
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software.
Bunge, S. A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2006). A brain-based account of the development of rule
use in childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 118121. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00419.x.
Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. Oxford, England:
North-Holland.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality traits and academic
examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237250. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.473.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the
intelligent personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General
Psychology, 10, 251267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.3.251.
Colom, R., Escorial, S., Shih, P. C., & Privado, J. (2007). Fluid intelligence, memory
spam, and temperament difculties predict academic performance in young
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 15031514. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.023.
Corr, P. J., & Kumari, V. (1998). Impulsivity, time of day, and stress: effects on
intelligence test performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 112. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2202.
Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T., & Campbell, A. (2011). Sex differences in impulsivity: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 97130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0021591.
De Wit, H., Flory, J. D., Acheson, A., McCloskey, M., & Manuck, S. B. (2007). IQ and
nonplanning impulsivity are independently associated with delay discounting
in middle-aged adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 111121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.026.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting
academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939944. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Personality and intelligence: Psychometric and experimental
approaches. In R. J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intelligence
(pp. 332). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fossati, A., Di Ceglie, A., Acquarini, E., & Barratt, E. S. (2001). Psychometric properties
of an Italian version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11). Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 57, 815828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1051.
Frick, P. J., Kamphaus, R. W., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Christ, M. G., Hart, E. L., et al.
(1991). Academic underachievement and the disruptive behavior disorders.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 289294. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.289.
Harmon-Jones, E., Barratt, E. S., & Wigg, C. (1997). Impulsiveness, aggression,
reading, and the P300 of the event-related potential. Personality and Individual
Differences, 22, 439445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00235-8.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2012). When IQ is not everything: Intelligence,
personality and academic performance at school. Personality and Individual
Differences, 53, 518522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.024.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. New York: Praeger.
Jreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory
capacity, executive attention, and general uid intelligence: An individualdifferences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 637671. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196323.

Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1984). Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of
latent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 201210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//
0033-2909.96.1.201.
Kipnis, D. (1965). Intelligence as a modier of the behavior of character disorders.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 237242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022429.
Kipnis, D., & Resnick, J. H. (1971). Experimental prevention of underachievement
among intelligent impulsive college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 36, 5360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030511.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York: Guilford.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career
potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 148161. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.148.
Kuntsi, J., Eley, T. C., Taylor, A., Hughes, C., Asherson, P., Caspi, A., et al. (2004). Cooccurrence of ADHD and low IQ has genetic origins. American Journal of Medical
Genetics, 124, 4147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.20076.
Laidra, K., Pullmann, H., & Allik, H. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors
of academic achievement: A cross-sectional study from elementary to
secondary school. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 441451. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.001.
Lozano, J. H., & Prez, M. A. (2012). Impulsivity, intelligence, and discriminating
reinforcement contingencies in a xed-ratio 3 schedule. The Spanish Journal of
Psychology,
15,
922929.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/
rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n3.39384.
Lynam, D., Moftt, T., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining the relation
between IQ and delinquency: Class, race, test motivation, school failure or selfcontrol? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2, 187196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//
0021-843X.102.2.187.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1, 130149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.1.2.130.
Matthews, G. (1999). Personality and skill: A cognitive-adaptive framework. In P. L.
Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual
differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 251273). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difculties of detecting
interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376390.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (2006). Mplus users guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthn & Muthn.
Oquendo, M. A., Baca-Garca, E., Graver, R., Morales, M., Montalvan, V., & Mann, J. J.
(2001). Spanish adaptation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11).
European Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 147155.
Ostaszewski, P. (1996). The relation between temperament and rate of temporal
discounting. European Journal of Personality, 10, 161172. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199609)10:3<161::AID-PER259>3.3.CO;2-I.
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt
Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768774. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6<768::AIDJCLP2270510607>3.0.CO;2-1.
Richards, J. B., Zhang, L., Mitchell, S., & de Witt, H. (1999). Delay and probability
discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: Effect of alcohol. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 121143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/
jeab.1999.71-121.
Russo, P. M., De Pascalis, V., Varriale, V., & Barratt, E. S. (2008). Impulsivity,
intelligence and P300 wave: An empirical study. International Journal of
Psychophysiology,
69,
112118.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijpsycho.2008.03.008.
Schweizer, K. (2002). Does impulsivity inuence performance in reasoning?
Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 10311043. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00209-4.
Shamosh, N. A., & Gray, J. R. (2008). Delay discounting and intelligence: A metaanalysis.
Intelligence,
36,
289305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.intell.2007.09.004.
Shamosh, N. A., DeYoung, C. G., Green, A. E., Reis, D. L., Johnson, M. R., Conway, A. R.
A., et al. (2008). Individual differences in delay discounting: Relation to
intelligence, working memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychological
Science, 19, 904911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02175.x.
Someya, T., Sakado, K., Seki, T., Kojima, M., Reist, C., Tang, S. W., et al. (2001). The
Japanese version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, 11th version (BIS-11): its
reliability and validity. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 55, 111114. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1819.2001.00796.x.
Spinella, M., & Milley, W. M. (2003). Impulsivity and educational achievement in
college students. College Student Journal, 37(4), 545549.
Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. G. (1999). Test de Aptitudes Mentales Primarias, 10
edicin [Primary Mental Abilities, 10th edition]. Madrid: TEA.
Vigil-Colet, A., & Morales-Vives, F. (2005). How impulsivity is related to intelligence
and academic achievement. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 8, 199204.
Zeidner, M. (1995). Personality trait correlates of intelligence. In D. H. Saklofske &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence
(pp. 299320). New York: Plenum Press.
Ziegler, M., Knogler, M., & Bhner, M. (2009). Conscientiousness, achievement
striving, and intelligence as performance predictors in a sample of German
psychology students: Always a linear relationship? Learning and Individual
Differences, 19, 288292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.02.001.