You probably know both of these people.
The first was a solid student. Not the top of the class, but consistent. Showed up, did the work, never needed to be the smartest person in the room. Got hired by a company in their mid-twenties, got promoted reliably, and now runs a department of twelve people. Stable career. Good income. By any conventional measure, successful.
Put that same person in a different environment and the story changes. They start a company. Suddenly there's no structure, no defined path, no reward for just showing up. The role requires reinvention every six months, tolerance for chaos, and the ability to sprint toward something that might not exist yet. They struggle. The same traits that made them exceptional in a traditional career become liabilities. The discipline, the consistency, the comfort with process. All of it works against them in a context that punishes over-planning and rewards improvisation.
The second person was “gifted” as a kid. Caught on to everything faster than the people around them. School was mostly boring. They didn't try very hard because they didn't have to, and the hard-work habit never formed. Now they're thirty-four, on their fourth career pivot, each one starting with genuine promise and ending with failure. Nothing has stuck. By the same conventional measure, underperforming based on their potential.
Put them somewhere different and that changes too. They build something. A company, a product, a creative practice. The unstructured chaos that tanked their corporate career is now their biggest strength. There's no template, no performance review, no quarterly objectives. There's just a problem worth solving and the freedom to solve it anyway they choose. The cognitive ability that was never fully taxed finally has something worth its attention. The novelty and autonomy keep them locked in, in a way that structured roles never could.
Same people. Same traits. Completely different outcomes. The only variable was the environment.
The conventional version of the success story quietly implies that only discipline wins and brilliance without discipline is wasted potential. The research says something more interesting. It says that different combinations of cognitive ability and personality predict success in different environments, and that most people have never had both measured and analyzed together. They've never seen, in concrete terms, which specific combination they carry and what it tends to produce. In other words, they aren’t sure exactly how they should win.
That's what this article breaks down. The research on how cognitive ability and personality combine to predict outcomes, why the combination matters more than either one alone, and what it means for the specific profile you're carrying around but have probably never had anyone actually map for you.
What the Research Actually Says
Frank Schmidt and John Hunter's landmark 1998 meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin synthesized 85 years of selection research across thousands of studies. The most important finding: general cognitive ability is the single strongest predictor of job performance available. It outpredicts work experience, education level, and unstructured interviews. The correlation between general mental ability and job performance, corrected for statistical artifacts, sits around r = .51 for medium-complexity jobs.
But Schmidt and Hunter also documented something that gets far less attention. When you add Conscientiousness to cognitive ability, predictive validity increases significantly. The combination of general mental ability and an integrity test (which primarily measures Conscientiousness) reached a validity coefficient of .65 for predicting job performance. That's a massive signal improvement. Across a workforce or a career, that gap in predictive accuracy is the difference between understanding performance and guessing at it.
Murray Barrick and Michael Mount's 1991 meta-analysis in Personnel Psychology, one of the most cited studies in industrial-organizational psychology, confirms the personality side of this equation. Analyzing 162 samples and nearly 24,000 people across five occupational groups, they found that Conscientiousness was the only Big Five personality trait that predicted job performance consistently across every occupation and every criterion type. No other trait generalized that broadly.
The reason these two findings belong together is that cognitive ability and Conscientiousness are nearly uncorrelated with each other. They're measuring completely different things. IQ predicts the upper bound of what you can do. Conscientiousness predicts the consistency with which you do it. Openness shapes what problems attract your attention. Neuroticism determines how much of your cognitive ability is accessible under pressure. Extraversion shapes whether your capabilities become visible in organizational settings. Agreeableness influences how you negotiate, collaborate, and how organizations compensate you.
What Each Trait Predicts on Its Own
Before looking at how personality and IQ interact, it's worth establishing what each dimension predicts individually. These are headline findings from some of the most replicated quantitative research in psychology.
Cognitive ability is correlated with educational attainment at around r = .50 to .60 across large meta-analyses and predicts training performance more strongly than any other single measure. The American Psychological Association's 1995 task force report described general cognitive ability as among the most valid predictors of success that psychology has identified. Conscientiousness predicts job performance across all occupational groups in Barrick and Mount's data, and beyond the workplace, a landmark longitudinal study by Howard Friedman and Leslie Martin, published as The Longevity Project, found that childhood Conscientiousness was one of the strongest predictors of lifespan over an eight-decade follow-up period. It's the trait that converts whatever ability you have into consistent output over time.
Extraversion predicts leadership emergence. Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt's 2002 meta-analysis, covering 222 correlations from 73 samples, found Extraversion was the strongest and most consistent personality predictor of leadership across study settings, with a correlation of .31. Agreeableness predicts income, but not in the direction most people expect: Judge, Livingston, and Hurst's 2012 research across four studies found a consistent negative relationship between Agreeableness and earnings, particularly pronounced for men. More agreeable individuals earned less. The same research found high Agreeableness predicted stronger social networks, higher life satisfaction, and lower stress. Neuroticism predicts performance specifically under pressure, with research showing it undermines decision-making quality when stakes are elevated, while having no measurable effect in low-pressure conditions.
The pattern across all five traits is the same: these are not descriptions of behavior. They are predictors of outcomes. Different combinations predict success in different environments. The goal is not to rank traits by desirability but to understand which combination you have and which contexts it tends to produce results in.
The Five Combinations That Shape Your Life
Each of the Big Five traits interacts with cognitive ability in a distinct way. These aren't abstract psychological categories. They're recognizable profiles, and you'll see yourself or people you know in them.
Conscientiousness x Cognitive Ability: The Deployment Question
Conscientiousness is the conversion rate between potential and output. It determines whether your cognitive ability gets deployed consistently over time or fires in bursts and then sits idle.
High Conscientiousness + High Cognitive Ability: This profile dominates in fields that require both intellectual complexity and sustained execution. The attending physician who is both diagnostically sharp and operationally reliable. The senior engineer who ships on time and doesn't need work redone. The attorney who is analytically excellent and relentlessly thorough. Schmidt and Hunter found that combining cognitive ability with a Conscientiousness-proxying integrity measure reached a validity coefficient of .65 for predicting job performance, meaningfully higher than either measure alone. This combination doesn't just predict success. It tends to compound it. If you thrive on hard problems and have a system for getting things across the finish line, this is likely your profile.
High Conscientiousness + Moderate Cognitive Ability: The person whose track record over time exceeds what their raw cognitive score would predict. They build systems. They follow through. They produce reliably, which means organizations and clients learn to count on them, and counting on someone is worth a great deal. Barrick and Mount's data shows Conscientiousness predicts job performance across all occupations regardless of cognitive level. You probably know someone like this who consistently out-executes people who are nominally smarter, and has done it long enough that nobody is surprised anymore.
Low Conscientiousness + High Cognitive Ability: Fast, perceptive, genuinely intelligent, and frequently stalled. This combination tends to produce people who see the problem immediately but don't always do what's required to solve it: the preparation, the iteration, the unglamorous follow-through. The insight is real. The output is inconsistent. If you've started more things than you've finished, and you know it, and you can't quite figure out why given how capable you are, this is worth looking at honestly.
Low Conscientiousness + Moderate Cognitive Ability: The most consistently underperforming profile across the research literature. Without cognitive horsepower to compensate or discipline to work around its absence, outcomes suffer across domains requiring sustained effort. Conscientiousness is substantially heritable and shaped by developmental experience rather than simply chosen. But the data is unambiguous about what this combination tends to produce. This is commonly what people mean when they talk about “gifted student syndrome.”
Openness x Cognitive Ability: The Intellectual Direction Question
Openness to experience, specifically its Intellect facet, has the most direct relationship with cognitive ability of any Big Five trait. Colin DeYoung and colleagues, using the Big Five Aspect Scales, found that the Intellect facet (curiosity about ideas, comfort with abstraction, engagement with complex problems) is independently associated with general intelligence across both verbal and nonverbal domains. The broader Openness facet (aesthetic sensitivity, experiential richness) correlates primarily with verbal intelligence. Together, Openness/Intellect correlates with measured cognitive ability at around r = .30.
What this means practically: high IQ and high Openness tend to co-occur, but they don't always. When they diverge, you get meaningfully different profiles.
High Openness + High Cognitive Ability: Intellectually wide-ranging, drawn to novelty and abstraction, energized by problems that don't yet have established solutions. This profile tends to cluster in research, philosophy, entrepreneurship, writing, and fields that reward connecting ideas across domains. The risk for this combination isn't capability. It's that the scope of genuine intellectual interest can make deep focus difficult. High Openness + High Cognitive Ability + Low Conscientiousness is the combination most likely to produce the person with ten promising starts and no completions. If you've been told your whole life that you're brilliant but scattered, and it rings true, this combination explains why.
Low Openness + High Cognitive Ability: Highly capable and directed toward depth rather than breadth. This person wants to understand how something works, develop genuine mastery of it, and execute with precision. The skilled surgeon, the expert accountant, the elite software engineer who writes clean maintainable code: these profiles often cluster here. They're not less intelligent. They're differently oriented, and they tend to be most effective in environments that reward mastery and reliability over cross-domain synthesis.
High Openness + Moderate Cognitive Ability: High curiosity with somewhat less cognitive horsepower to fully process everything it attracts. Frequently creative and genuinely engaged with ideas, well-suited to collaborative environments where intellectual input is valued even when it isn't being analytically stress-tested solo. Tends to struggle in roles requiring rigorous independent analysis under time pressure.
The practical takeaway: Openness shapes what your cognitive ability gets pointed at, which problems feel alive, which environments energize or drain you, which career trajectories feel meaningful.
Neuroticism x Cognitive Ability: The Access Question
Neuroticism is the most underappreciated dimension when it comes to cognitive performance, and its interaction with cognitive ability is one of the most practically significant findings in personality psychology.
The mechanism is well-established. Byrne, Silasi-Mansat, and Worthy found that Neuroticism had no effect on decision-making quality under low-pressure conditions. Only under pressure did higher Neuroticism predict significantly worse performance. The explanation comes from distraction theory: anxiety generates task-irrelevant thoughts that consume working memory. Working memory is central to fluid intelligence, the ability to reason through novel problems in real time. When it's occupied by worry, less is available for the actual cognitive task.
Neuroticism creates an access problem with cognitive ability. The capacity is there. The anxiety shuts it down.
Low Neuroticism + High Cognitive Ability: Calm competence under fire. The crisis surgeon who gets sharper when others are rattled. The founder who stays clear-headed when the company is in trouble. The negotiator who thinks better when the stakes are highest. High cognitive ability combined with genuine emotional stability means the full range of cognitive resources stays available precisely when the situation demands them most. Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt found Neuroticism had a correlation of -.24 with leadership across their meta-analysis of 73 samples. The negative relationship between emotional instability and effective leadership is one of the most replicated findings in organizational psychology.
High Neuroticism + High Cognitive Ability: The intellectual firepower to see the full complexity of any problem, combined with the emotional reactivity to experience that complexity as threat rather than challenge. In low-stakes environments, this combination can produce genuinely impressive analytical work. The thoroughness that comes from threat-sensitivity is an asset in risk analysis, auditing, and diagnostic medicine. In high-stakes, evaluative, or time-pressured settings, the same combination tends to produce underperformance relative to actual ability. If you've ever known the answer in a meeting but couldn't access it because your heart was pounding, or aced a practice test and bombed the real one, this is the combination at work.
Low Neuroticism + Moderate Cognitive Ability: Consistent performance across varying conditions. Not the most analytically powerful profile, but a reliably available one. Performance doesn't degrade under pressure. In organizational environments where dependability under stress is what actually matters, this combination is frequently more valuable than brilliance that disappears when the stakes rise.
Extraversion x Cognitive Ability: The Visibility Question
In an idealized meritocracy, cognitive ability would be recognized and rewarded based on outputs. In the actual world, visibility matters enormously, and Extraversion is the primary personality driver of visibility.
Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt's 2002 meta-analysis found Extraversion to be the strongest and most consistent personality predictor of leadership emergence across all study settings and leadership criteria, with a correlation of .31. Extraverts were not necessarily better leaders in terms of organizational effectiveness. But they were reliably more likely to be perceived as leaders and to be placed in leadership positions. Research on income shows similar patterns: Extraversion predicts earnings in roles with a social influence component.
High Extraversion + High Cognitive Ability: The combination that tends to produce what organizations call executive presence. Fast thinking, publicly articulated. These people get credit for their intelligence because their intelligence is visible. Ideas surface in meetings, get challenged, get refined, and get attributed. In sales, leadership, and roles requiring social influence, this profile tends to advance quickly and to accumulate the network effects that compound over a career. If you've always been comfortable being the one to speak up, and rooms tend to move in your direction when you do, this is probably your territory.
Low Extraversion + High Cognitive Ability: Frequently the most undervalued profile in organizational settings. The best thinking from this person happens privately, in preparation, in writing, in deep solo analysis, and what appears in group settings is often a fraction of their actual intellectual output. Research consistently shows extraverts are promoted more often at comparable performance levels, which means this combination is routinely passed over in environments that conflate verbal confidence with cognitive capability. If your best ideas are in the memo that nobody read rather than the meeting where you went quiet, this is the visibility problem in action.
High Extraversion + Moderate Cognitive Ability: Visible and socially skilled, advancing faster in organizations than cognitive score alone would predict. Advancement in organizations is partly a social process, and social skill is genuine competence. This combination does well in stakeholder-intensive roles and tends to underperform in environments requiring rigorous independent analysis.
The practical question isn't whether social intelligence is real intelligence. It clearly is. The question is whether your Extraversion level is an asset or a liability in the specific environment you're in, and whether you've structured your work to surface what you're actually capable of.
Agreeableness x Cognitive Ability: The Leverage Question
Agreeableness is the Big Five trait most misunderstood in terms of career outcomes, particularly because it tends to be associated with socially valued qualities (warmth, cooperation, generosity) while producing economic outcomes that don't always reward them.
Judge, Livingston, and Hurst's 2012 research across four studies found a consistent negative relationship between Agreeableness and income, with the penalty most pronounced for men. More agreeable individuals earned less. Disagreeable individuals negotiated more assertively, pushed back more effectively against resistance, and earned a financial premium for it. The same research found high Agreeableness predicted stronger social networks, higher life satisfaction, and lower stress. The trade-off is real and measurable in both directions.
Low Agreeableness + High Cognitive Ability: A profile that clusters in founding, executive, and high-stakes negotiating roles. Smart enough to identify the right answer and assertive enough to push for it against social resistance, including the resistance that comes from telling people things they don't want to hear. The research suggests this combination tends to be financially rewarded, particularly in environments where decision authority, confrontation, and negotiation determine outcomes. The long-run risk is that low Agreeableness can erode the relational capital that sustains organizational effectiveness over time. If you're the person in the room willing to say the hard thing, and you've noticed that rooms sometimes move because of it and sometimes turn against you because of it, this is the combination in action.
High Agreeableness + High Cognitive Ability: A profile that clusters in medicine, counseling, scientific research, and teaching, fields where cognitive demands are high and the work is oriented toward serving others. Intellectually capable of handling complex problems and relationally oriented toward deploying that capability in service of people rather than in competition with them. In organizations, this profile tends to become the most trusted advisor: analytically sharp and non-threatening. The income penalty is real. So are the relational and life-satisfaction advantages.
High Agreeableness + Moderate Cognitive Ability: Strong in team environments, collaborative roles, and service-oriented functions. Frequently at a disadvantage in competitive or politically complex settings. The social richness that high Agreeableness tends to produce is real and substantial, as is the income penalty. This combination tends to produce good lives and modest incomes in a predictable pattern.
Why Most Assessments Miss This
Most personality assessments don't touch cognitive ability. Most cognitive ability assessments don't touch personality. These two industries evolved separately, serve different clients, and carry different theoretical traditions, and the research linking them has been largely ignored in how assessments are actually built and sold.
The Schmidt and Hunter finding that combining cognitive ability with personality improves predictive validity substantially has been cited thousands of times in the academic literature. But the assessment industry responded by making better personality tests and better IQ tests, not by building tools that examine how the two interact.
16Personalities gives you a personality type. Mensa gives you an IQ number. Neither tells you what happens when those data points are placed alongside each other. Neither helps you understand why you've performed the way you have relative to what your cognitive ability alone would predict, or what your personality alone would predict.
The question most people actually want answered isn't "am I smart?" or "what's my personality type?" It's more fundamental: given who I actually am, my cognitive style, my personality architecture, the whole combination, where am I most likely to do my best work? That question requires both data points, and it requires understanding how they interact.
How TalentRank Approaches This
At TalentRank, we assess both cognitive ability and the full Big Five because the research is unambiguous: neither measure alone tells you what you most need to know.
For cognitive ability, our assessment is based on the ICAR-16 (International Cognitive Ability Resource, 16-item version) developed by David Condon and William Revelle at Northwestern University and validated in peer-reviewed research including against the full WAIS-IV clinical IQ test. We're direct about what it is: a directional estimate, not a clinical IQ test. It reliably identifies whether your cognitive ability falls in the lower, average, or higher ranges, and when combined with a full personality profile, that directional estimate produces more actionable guidance than a precise IQ number would in isolation. For a full explanation of what the ICAR-16 measures and what the score means, see our [IQ pillar page].
For personality, we use a validated Big Five assessment covering all five traits and their key facets. Not types, not letters, not categories. Dimensions measured on continuous scales, with decades of real-world predictive validity behind them.
The output isn't two scores sitting next to each other. It's an analysis of how your specific cognitive ability and personality profile interact, what that combination tends to produce in terms of career fit, leadership style, and earning potential, and where the gap is likely to be between your ability and your current output.
What to Do with This Information
Understanding the research is useful. Acting on it is far more valuable, but it requires knowing your specific combination, not just the general patterns.
Match environment to profile, not just capability. High cognitive ability with low Extraversion tends to produce better outcomes in environments that reward deep independent work than environments that reward verbal performance in group settings. This isn't limitation. It's alignment, and alignment matters more than raw capability in determining whether potential converts to output.
Take Neuroticism seriously as a performance variable. If you consistently underperform in high-stakes or evaluative settings relative to low-pressure situations, that's likely a Neuroticism effect, not a capability deficit. The research is clear that anxiety consumes working memory. Structuring work to reduce evaluative threat, or deliberately building tolerance for it, does more for outcomes than additional skill development in most cases.
Understand Agreeableness as a trade-off, not a flaw. High Agreeableness has real costs in negotiation and competitive settings. It also produces real advantages in collaborative work and long-term social capital. The research doesn't say one end of the spectrum is better. It says different levels suit different environments, and knowing where you are helps you choose accordingly.
None of this is deterministic. Personality and cognitive ability explain meaningful variance in real-world outcomes, but they don't explain everything. Timing, structural access, network effects, and luck all matter. What this research offers isn't a verdict. It's the most powerful self-knowledge currently available from measurable individual characteristics, a map rather than a sentence, useful for making better decisions about where to direct effort and which environments to seek.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is IQ or personality more important for success?
Both matter, and they matter for different things. General cognitive ability is the strongest single predictor of job performance in complex roles, particularly for learning new job knowledge quickly and solving novel problems under time pressure. Conscientiousness is the strongest personality predictor and the only Big Five trait that predicts job performance consistently across all occupations and criterion types. The honest answer from the research: cognitive ability determines the upper bound of what you can achieve in cognitively complex roles; personality determines whether you consistently approach that bound. For long-term career outcomes, the combination predicts better than either alone, which is why measuring both matters.
Can personality compensate for lower cognitive ability?
Partially, and in ways that depend on the domain. High Conscientiousness meaningfully boosts performance at every cognitive ability level. In roles where sustained execution and reliability matter more than solving novel problems in real time, exceptional discipline can allow someone with average cognitive ability to outperform people of higher cognitive ability over a career horizon. The compensation has limits: roles in medicine, advanced mathematics, and scientific research have cognitive complexity floors that personality alone cannot clear. And certain relational and leadership roles have Extraversion and Agreeableness requirements that cognitive ability alone cannot meet. Different ceilings exist for different trait combinations in different domains.
Why do smart people underperform?
Usually for one of three reasons, all personality-related. First, low Conscientiousness: the cognitive ability is there, but the discipline to deploy it consistently isn't. Second, high Neuroticism: the cognitive ability is there, but anxiety is consuming working memory in high-pressure settings and reducing effective performance below actual capability. Third, environment mismatch: the cognitive ability is there, but it's being deployed in a context that doesn't surface it, a high-IQ introvert in a role that rewards verbal group performance rather than deep independent analysis. The smart person underperforming is almost always a personality and environment story.
What personality type is most successful?
There is no single winning profile. High Conscientiousness is the most consistent predictor of career performance across occupations. High Extraversion predicts leadership emergence and income in socially-intensive roles. Low Agreeableness predicts higher income in competitive environments. Low Neuroticism predicts effectiveness under pressure. High Openness predicts creative achievement in fields that reward intellectual exploration. The people with the strongest outcomes tend to be those who've found, or built, environments where their specific combination of traits is an asset rather than a liability. Not those who scored highest on some aggregate of socially valued traits.
Does IQ predict income?
Yes, but with several strong caveats. Cognitive ability correlates with educational attainment, which correlates with access to higher-earning occupational categories, so the IQ-income relationship is real but largely mediated by these pathways. The direct effect of IQ on income within occupational groups is smaller than most people expect. Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness each explain meaningful variation in income within occupations in ways that often dwarf the direct cognitive ability effect. Judge, Livingston, and Hurst's 2012 research on Agreeableness found consistent, substantial income differences across four studies. IQ tends to determine which fields you access. Personality tends to determine what you earn once you're there.
Why does TalentRank measure both personality and IQ?
Because neither alone gives you the full picture. The research is clear that cognitive ability and personality predict performance through different mechanisms and are nearly uncorrelated with each other, which means measuring only one leaves most of the variance in outcomes unexplained. Schmidt and Hunter showed in 1998 that combining cognitive ability with Conscientiousness-related measures improved predictive validity for job performance substantially over either measure alone. Most assessment companies measure one or the other because the personality industry and the cognitive testing industry evolved in parallel. TalentRank was built specifically to combine both. For cognitive ability, we use an assessment based on the ICAR-16, a peer-reviewed short-form instrument validated against clinical IQ tests. For personality, we use a validated full Big Five assessment. The output connects both data points to career fit, leadership profile, and earning potential as a combined analysis, not two separate scores sitting next to each other.
Your Combination Is the Starting Point
Most people have some intuition about their personality, and most people have some sense of their cognitive ability. Intuition is a starting point, but it's noisy, self-serving, and it doesn't show you how the two dimensions interact.
The TalentRank assessment measures both: cognitive ability using a peer-reviewed short-form instrument, and the full Big Five personality profile across all five traits. The output connects those data points to career fit, leadership profile, and earning potential, not as separate scores, but as a combined analysis of the specific combination you actually have.
[Take the free TalentRank assessment and see what your combination predicts.]
Sources
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Byrne, K. A., Silasi-Mansat, C. D., & Worthy, D. A. (2015). Who chokes under pressure? The Big Five personality traits and decision-making under pressure. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 22-28.
Condon, D. M., & Revelle, W. (2014). The international cognitive ability resource: Development and initial validation of a public-domain measure. Intelligence, 43, 52-64.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., Peterson, J. B., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 46-52.
DeYoung, C. G., Shamosh, N. A., Green, A. E., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Intellect as distinct from Openness: Differences revealed by fMRI of working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 883-892.
Friedman, H. S., & Martin, L. R. (2011). The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study. Hudson Street Press.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
Judge, T. A., Livingston, B. A., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice guys and gals really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 390-407.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. S., & Shaffer, J. A. (2016). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 100 years of research findings. Working Paper, Fox School of Business.