Copyright 1996 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
OO22-3514/96/S3.OO
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1996, Vol. 70, No. 2, 349-361
IQ and Ego-Resiliency: Conceptual and Empirical
Connections and Separateness
Jack Block and Adam M. Kremen
University of California, Berkeley
The constructs of intelligence and ego-resiliency are discussed. The personality implications of "pure
intelligence" and "pure ego-resilience" were identified. Intelligence (IQ) was indexed by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised and ego-resiliency by an inventory scale. Residual scores measuring "pure intelligence" and "pure ego-resilience" were correlated with the items of the observerbased California Q-sort, used to describe participants. Persons relatively high on ego-resilience tend
to be more competent and comfortable in the "fuzzier" interpersonal world; persons defined primarily by raw IQ tend to be effective in the "clearer" world of structured work but tend also to be uneasy
with affect and less able to realize satisfying human connections. Gender differences exist in the
relations of ego-resilience and intelligence and in their adaptive relevance.
(Sternberg, 1985a)—that provide the basis of intelligence. Furthermore, IQ is used as a summarizing index of what may be
viewed as a latent "general" factor underlying the diverse measures of intellectual ability that psychologists have used (Jensen,
1993). In the research we report, intelligence is represented by
IQ scores.
We acknowledge that "although many of us act as though
intelligence is what intelligence tests measure, few of us believe
it" (Sternberg, 1985a, p. 43). Recent views of intelligence have
much enlarged on this traditional but narrow conception of intelligence (e.g., Brown, 1978; Carroll, 1993; Sternberg, 1985a,
1985b). We discuss these current conceptions later. For our immediate conceptual and analytical purposes, it has been more
appropriate to accept and work with the familiar and restricted
view of intelligence simply as an IQ score.
We all know highly intelligent individuals who do not function well in the world in which they must live and who are psychologically maladjusted. And we all have encountered individuals not unusually endowed intellectually who nevertheless
have achieved ways of living that are personally satisfying, socially constructive, and adaptationally creative. Such examples
suggest that the long-standing emphasis of psychologists on the
all-importance of intelligence for life adaptation is wanting; our
psychological understandings require conceptual deepening.
This article is an effort in that direction.
The Construct of Intelligence
The study of human intelligence has been a preoccupation of
psychologists for over a century. As a consequence, the extant
literature is beyond serious compass. Theoretical views abound,
and the attendant empiricism in its frequency and detail is overwhelming. Histories of the intelligence concept may be consulted for perspective on the issues and approaches that have
been brought forward (see, e.g., Brody, 1992; Steinberg, 1985a,
1990).
It was Boring (1923) who offered the tautological view of intelligence as what intelligence tests measure. Psychologists have
emphasized and continue to emphasize IQ tests because performance on such tests has been shown to have ubiquitous behavioral and outcome implications. Such tests are presumed to reflect the relatively raw basic processing functions—"the primary mental abilities" (Thurstone, 1938) or "components"
The Construct of Ego-resiliency
Individuals vary widely in their effectiveness of adaptation, in
their ability to equilibrate and reequilibrate in response to their
ever-changing being and the ever-changing world. Within a single life, too, it will be observed that at times a person is much
more resourceful and adaptively effective than at other times.
Because of the recognition of such interindividual and intraindividual differences, a central conceptual preoccupation of
the field of personality over the years has been with how to most
fruitfully theorize regarding the factors underlying human
adaptability.
There have been two basic approaches to the characterization
of adaptability. The first approach, pragmatically concerned
with societal requirements, has focused on the dimension of
adjustment.
The term adjustment is a conceptually undemanding (even
innocuous) layperson's way of saying that an individual is getting along or not getting along in the world as it is. Such "adjustment" is not without societal importance, of course. Ultimately,
such adjustment must be taken into account when a person's
adaptability is considered. But the term seems also to imply a
Jack Block and Adam M. Kremen, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health
Grant MH 16080.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Jack Block or Adam M. Kremen, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-1650. Electronic mail
may be sent via the Internet to JBLOCK@violet.Berkeley.edu or to
ADAMK@CMSA.Berkeley.edu.
349
350
BLOCK AND KREMEN
conformance to conditions and values that, from an intrapsychological rather than societal standpoint, may not mean psychological health. As Thoreau implied in his remark about lives
led in quiet desperation, an "adjusted" person may not be a
happy person but rather a person who has settled for less. A
related recognition is that a person may be adapted but not
adaptable. The individual may have sought and found or fortuitously encountered a niche in which to abide and perhaps hide,
one that suffices, one that keeps despairs and anxiety within tolerable bounds. This kind of static adaptation is not publicly
troublesome, but it is not what we should mean by adaptability.
So, being adjusted, being adapted, is not quite the way to think
conceptually about adaptability and psychological health.
The second approach has derived from recognition of the insufficiency of societal preoccupation with "adjustment" and the
atheoretical view of "mental health" as meaning simply and
solely the absence of "symptoms." In response, various concepts have been brought forward as theoretically useful, more
psychological abstractions to characterize human adaptability
(e.g., ego strength, emotional stability, coping, competence,
self-efficacy, hardiness, self-regulation). More recently, a connotatively cognitive terminology has been advanced: "response
modulation" (Patterson & Newman, 1993), "executive systems," "decision and adaptive systems" (Kosslyn & Koenig,
1992), "the Central Executive" (Baddeley, 1986), "attentional
and effortful control" (Posner & Rothbart, 1992), "meta-cognitive components" of intelligence (Brown, 1978; Sternberg,
1985a), "action control" (Kuhl & Kraska, 1989), "social intelligence" (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987; Ford & Tisak, 1983;
Keating, 1978), "emotional intelligence" (Salovey & Mayer,
1990), "constructive thinking" (Epstein & Meier, 1989), and
"left brain interpreter" (Gazzaniga, 1989), among others.
These concepts have been of diverse conjectural origin and
have used different terminologies, but all have been proposed to
encompass the quite remarkable phenomenon of human adaptability in more articulated, more theoretical ways that might
advance our understanding. One of these concepts, formulated
more than 40 years ago (J. Block, 1950; J. H. Block, 1951) is
the construct of ego-resiliency. (This may have been the first
conceptual usage of the term resiliency in psychology.)
If the infant starting out in life is to become adaptively attuned to the surrounding psychosocial environment, impulse
cannot be allowed free rein; the capacity to regulate or modulate impulse must be developed by the child. By so doing, the
potentially dangerous and potentially enticing world beyond the
child becomes less fearsome and more controllable. Adverse
consequences are not triggered; pleasing consequences become
more likely. Such impulse control develops over time through
the maturation and experientially derived construction of various personality structures (e.g., mechanisms, routines, schemata, scripts, procedural rules, production systems), many of
which involve a strong but by no means exclusive cognitive
component. In psychoanalytic terminology, these personality
structures serve to bring the individual, otherwise bent on maximizing the "pleasure principle," reluctantly under the governance of the preemptive "reality principle." The interrelated,
sequentially organized set and system of personality structures
is marshaled to give priority to avoidance of immediate threats
to the viability of the individual. Within that overriding con-
straint, the personality system is further disposed so as to gratify
the individual and to enhance long-term viability (e.g., reproductive fitness). This evolution-derived, dual, but hierarchically organized system is what the term "ego" means in the
present context.1 Phenomenologically, when the ego system is
functioning well, and the external surround is passably secure,
the individual is zestful about life, experiences a sense of coherence and self-esteem (incoherence and an absence of self-esteem are subjective signs to the individual that the ego system is
not working decently), is affectively aware and responsive,2 and
therefore has developed and now can count on enduring interpersonal relatedness (Epstein, 1994).
Examples of specific "ego-functioning" structures (orientations
or premises implemented by behavioral routines or perceptualizing schematas) include contextually warranted delay of gratification, rejection of contextually unwarranted nongratification,
inhibition of aggression (which might elicit dangerous
reactions), caution in unstructured situations, and playfully sentient experiencing of the environment. They may also include
what Freud (1933) called "experimental action" (i.e., internal
cognitive construction and manipulation of anticipated, alternatively possible behaviors so as to foresee consequences whenever
feasible), "working models" of interpersonal relations oriented
to effectively access love and prevent abandonment, and so on.
The various ego structures involved in impulse control are interrelated. Following system organizational principles, these ego
structures are invoked sequentially as the individual responds to
and acts upon the flux of experience, facing different contextual
demands and different contextual opportunities. Developmentally, these metamotivational dynamics mold an individual personality system.
The interrelations and sequencing of ego structures may be
effective or ineffective in maintaining the personality system of
the individual within the bounds of psychological viability. Psychological viability for the individual entails a tolerable anxiety
level, a tolerable mesh with situational impingements, and a tolerable level of impulse expression. The linkages of the ego structures that keep the personality system within tenable bounds or
permit thefindingagain of psychologically tenable adaptational
1
As an aside, we note and acknowledge that the word ego troubles
many psychologists because they view that term as implying a homunculus, a little man sitting high up in his pineal office, directing the fortunes of his empire. From the scientific perspective of those concerned
with the neural organization of the human brain, much to be preferred
apparently are expressions such as the "left brain interpreter," offered
recently by a well-known neuroscientist. The "left brain interpreter" is
defined as a neural system
"that allows the organism to generate hypotheses about the nature
of its responses, and by doing so, not only presents the human. . .
with a mechanism to both form and modify beliefs, but perhaps
also frees the human agent from the shackles of environmental
stimuli." (Gazzaniga, 1989, p. 951)
It is acknowledged that this neural system is thus far unspecifiable.
We suggest that these two concepts—ego and left brain interpreter—
represent equally homuncular efforts to embody the complexity of
adaptive human functioning. The term ego may be preferable because
of its historical precedence and neural neutrality.
1
The ego system is affectively aware and responsive, but not to the
point of immobilizing hyperawareness.
IQ AND EGO-RESILIENCY
modes are what is meant by the construct ofego-resiliency. Note
that by this definition, the hallmark of psychological health is the
complementary coupling of external affordances and constraints
with the internal motivations and needs of the individual.
The child's learning of impulse control per se, of behavioral
inhibitions, of compliance with parental prescriptions, and of reflexive, unthinking deference to internalized proscriptions is developmentally advancing for the child when it occurs. However,
such inhibition or compliance does not necessarily represent an
adaptively desirable endpoint. Adaptability in the long-term requires more than the replacement of unbridled impulsivity, or
undercontrol, with categorical, pervasive, andrigidimpulse control. This would be overcontrol of impulse, restriction of the
spontaneity that provides the basis for creativity and interpersonal connection. Instead, and ideally, dynamic and resourceful
regulation and equilibration of impulses and inhibitions must be
achieved. It is this modulation of ego-control that we more formally mean by the construct of ego-resiliency. It can be said that
the human goal is to be as undercontrolled as possible and as
overcontrolled as necessary. When one is more undercontrolled
than is adaptively effective or more overcontrolled than is adaptively required, one is not resilient
Because people differ reliably in their degree of dynamic resourcefulness in maintaining a personally sufficient adaptational
system, it follows that individuals toward one end of the ego-resilience continuum may be called ego-resilient and individuals
toward the other end of the continuum may be called ego-brittle.
Ego-brittleness, given the inevitable stream of oncoming and
somewhat unpredictable situations, places the individual at risk
for the experience of anxiety (and other negative affects). The
presence of anxiety, as well as the strategies desperately invoked
subsequently to head off the intrusion of anxiety, encumber flexible modification of ego-control. Both derivatives of ego-brittleness act partly by impeding theflowof information between ego
structures, necessary for adaptively responsive linkages. Also,
overly predetermined response patterns—leading to automatic
invocation of overcontrol or a succumbing to undercontrol—
will, in the long run, bring about less successful adaptations to
environmental contexts, resulting both in increased negative
affect (Tellegen, 1985) and to a less differentiated behavioral repertoire. In the absence of the preemptive influence of anxiety,
however, the individual is released to engage in positive and vital
exploration of the environment (J. Block, 1982; White, 1959).
Thus, ego-resilience is expected to predispose individuals not
only to an absence of susceptibility to anxiety but also to a positive engagement with the world, as manifested by positive affect
(Tellegen, 1985) and openness to experience. The ego-brittle individual, in contrast, is expected to frequently experience anxieties precipitated, inevitably, by existential uncertainties and
difficulties. It follows further that, iffrequentlyexperienced, such
anxieties may lead to a chronic dysphoria. Thus, both positive
affect and negative affect, although conceptually independent of
each other, may be viewed as characterological consequences of
ego-resiliency or ego-brittleness.
The integrally related constructs of ego-control and ego-resilience represent abstractions intended to encompass the observable phenomena of motivational control and resourceful adaptation as relatively enduring, structural aspects of personality. Note
that, as formulated (see, e.g., J. Block, 1950, 1965; J. H. Block,
351
1951;J.H.Block&J. Block, 1980; J.H. Block & Martin, 1955),
the definition of ego-resiliency is a particular, theory-dependent
one that has sought to express some useful recognitions achieved
by psyehodynamic theory and to generate explicit behavioral
predictions.3 As specifically conceptualized, ego-resiliency refers
to the dynamic capacity of an individual to modify a characteristic level of ego-control, in either direction, as a function of the
demand characteristics of the environmental context, so as to
preserve or enhance system equilibration. Depending upon impinging psychological presses, ego-resilience implies the ability to
change from and also return to the individual's characteristic
level of ego-control after the temporary, accommodation-requiring stressing influence is no longer acutely present (J. Block,
1982). The idea of "resilience" implies a generalized, characterological quality of an individual and does not simply apply to a
highly specific, one-time behavior.
The Connection Between IQ and Ego-resiliency
One of the questions raised in regard to ego-resiliency derives
from its relation with "intelligence." Measures of ego-resiliency
and measures of IQ tend to correlate somewhat. More generally,
it is well-known that what are designated somewhat vaguely as
executive functions (which we interpret as manifestations of
ego-resiliency) correlate with IQ (see, e.g., Lezak, 1983; Lynam, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1993; Moffitt, 1993).
Conceptually, some degree of connection between ego-resiliency (hereafter, ER) and IQ can be expected to exist. This connection may, in part, be definitionally based, if the particular
construct of intelligence used is conceptualized very broadly.
But indices of human adaptability will relate also to indices of
intelligence more narrowly defined (i.e., IQ) for the obvious
reason that adaptability is at least a partial indicator of a sufficient functioning of underlying intellective components, such
as short-term memory, information, reaction time, et cetera.
These recognitions warrant further empirical study. What is
the connection between ego-resiliency and intelligence as represented by IQ? And what are the unique contributions that
each offers to understanding behavior and adaptation?
To proceed with this question, it is necessary to fairly operationally define the constructs. To operationally define the construct of intelligence, we used a standard and widely accepted
IQ measure. ER can be evaluated in a variety of ways—by laboratory test situations; by prolonged, well-based observations of
individuals in their life contexts; and, most simply in adults, by
the use of a specifically constructed questionnaire scale. In the
present study, we have used this last method.
3
In recent years, the term resiliency, without the prefixing term ego,
has come into other, less formal, simply descriptive use. The term resilience, as now used so broadly by so many, is often nothing more than
contemporary jaigon for what an earlier generation of psychologists labeled ego strength. For others (e.g., Hauser, Vieyra, Jacobson, & Wertlieb, 1985; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Milgram & Palti, 1993;
Rutter, 1990), the idea of resiliency refers to "invulnerable" individuals
or the observed phenomenon of "survivorship." Individuals characterized by seemingly successful adaptation, despite seemingly significant
challenges or threats to adaptation, are said to be "resilient." This descriptive usage of the term resilience can readily be subsumed by the
more conceptual construct of ego resiliency.
352
BLOCK AND KREMEN
Given a widely used and generally well-regarded IQ index and
a self-report questionnaire scale established to index ER, analyses can focus on the behavioral implications of ER after partialing the influence of IQ and, symmetrically, on the behavioral
implications of IQ after eliminating the influence of ER.
Method
Participants
Participants were individuals in the Block and Block Longitudinal
Study of Cognitive and Ego Development at the University of California
at Berkeley (see J. H. Block & J. Block, 1980, for a comprehensive description of the study during its early years; for later understandings of
the study, consult, e.g., J. Block, 1993; J. Block, J. H. Block, & Keyes,
1988; J. Block, Gjerde, & Block, 1991). Participants resided primarily
in urban areas and were heterogeneous with respect to social class and
parents' educational level. At age 18, 106 participants were assessed; at
age 23, 104 participants were assessed. Of these, usable data for the
present analyses were available for 95 participants (49 women and 46
men).
Measuring IQ
At age 18, participants were evaluated by means of the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981). The subscales of the WAIS-R were administered to a participant over several
assessment sessions held on different, proximate days. This temporal
spreading of testing can be expected to provide a more dependable and
representative index of the participant's IQ.
The coefficient alpha reliabilities of WAIS-R Full IQ score was .83.
The correlations between the WAIS-R Full IQ scores with Wechsler IQ
scores measured at ages 4 and 11, uncorrected for attenuation, were
very high for both sexes (for the girls, r^_is = .71, ru.is = .81; for the
boys, r4_18 = .63, /•„_„ = .85. At age 18, the mean WAIS-R score for the
female sample was 111.2 (SD = 13.2); for the male sample, the mean
IQ score was 115.9 (SD = 14.3). This difference approached statistical
significance (p = .09).
Table 1
Items ofthe Ego-Resiliency Scale (ER89)
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
I am generous with my friends.
I quickly get over and recover from being startled.
I enjoy dealing with new and unusual situations.
I usually succeed in making a favorable impression on people.
I enjoy trying new foods I have never tasted before.
I am regarded as a very energetic person.
I like to take different paths to familiar places.
I am more curious than most people.
Most of the people I meet are likeable.
I usually think carefully about something before acting.
I like to do new and different things.
My daily life is full of things that keep me interested.
I would be willing to describe myself as a pretty "strong"
personality.
14. I get over my anger at someone reasonably quickly.
Note. ER89 items are responded to by participants using a 4-step continuum: 1 = does not apply at all; 2 = applies slightly, if at all; 3 =
applies somewhat; and 4 = applies very strongly. It is desirable to intermix the ER89 items with other inventory items being administered
at the same time.
the attenuation effect, they become .67 and .51. It merits mention that,
in our longitudinal study, the period from age 18 to age 23 seems to be
an especially significant developmental time when individuals simultaneously articulate themselves and consolidate themselves psychologically. Across time periods of equivalent length but later in life, after
character has become more established, it can be expected that crosstime ER89 correlations would be appreciably higher (see, e.g., J. Block,
1981; McCrae & Costa, 1990).
For the purposes of the present analyses, the ER89 scale scores at ages
18 and 23 were standard scored within each sex and then averaged. The
resulting averaged score can be expected to be more dependable than
either of its elements, as well as more adequately representing the longterm structural nature of ER.
An Inventory Scale to Index Ego Resilience
Over a number of years, in various studies, inventory items reflecting ego resilience and suitable for usage in nonpsychiatric contexts
have been sought and evaluated by the authors (e.g., J. Block, 1965).
Like most efforts at scale development, this conceptual effort has proceeded in empirical ways and has involved conceptual decisions that
were not fully systematic. Therefore, the history of this sequence of
efforts cannot be fully or precisely described. As Eysenck and Eysenck
(1976) have remarked in an equivalent context, "Our reasons for accepting or rejecting items were so complex that it would be difficult to
objectify them . . . the only possible check on the value of our work
must be the validation of thefinalproduct" (p. 47). The present study
uses the latest version of an ego-resiliency scale (ER89) and is based
on several samples entirely different from the present one. It consists
of 14 items, each responded to on a 4-point scale. Table 1 presents
the items constituting the ER89 scale. The ER89 items, interspersed
among many other inventory items, were administered to participants
at both ages 18 and 23.
Within the entire sample, the coefficient alpha reliability of ER89 was
.76 at both ages 18 and 23. For a brief inventory scale, these reliabilities
are relatively high. Across the 5 years between the two assessments, the
correlation of the ER89 scores was .51 for the female sample and .39 for
the male sample, uncorrected for attenuation. These cross-time correlations are, of course, statistically highly significant; when adjusted for
Measuring Personality During Late Adolescence and
Young Adulthood: The California Adult Q-sort
Participants' personality characteristics were described at ages 18 and
23 by using the standard vocabulary of the California Adult Q-sort
(CAQ; J. Block, 1961/1978) The CAQ consists of 100 statements tapping a wide range of personality, cognitive, and social characteristics.
The method has demonstrated its usefulness in numerous and diverse
research contexts (e.g., J. Block, J. H. Block, & Harrington, 1974; J.
Block etal., 1988,1991; J. Block & Robins, 1993).
At both ages 18 and 23, participants were assessed not only on a variety of experimental measures but also in in-depth, clinical interviews.
When participants were 18 years old, each was described, using the
CAQ, by four examiners and two interviewers. When participants were
23 years old, they were each again described, using the CAQ, by a
different set of three examiners and three interviewers.
Judges described each participant by arranging the items into a
forced, quasinormal distribution for each individual by sorting the
items, using nine categories, from not at all characteristic or salient to
highly characteristic or salient. The Q-descriptions, obtained independently of each other, were then averaged to create a pooled judgment for
each participant. The CAQ assessments at ages 18 and 23 were strictly
independent of each other. The mean internal consistencyreliabilityof
IQ AND EGO-RESILIENCY
the 100 Q-items, based on correlations among observers, averaged .59
and .70, at ages 18 and 23, respectively.
Statistical Analysis
When two variables correlate and one desires, for conceptual reasons,
to disentangle them, the technique of partial correlation can be used.
Thus, height and weight correlate and yet are clearly and usefully separate concepts. By statistical analysis, indices of what may be called
"pure height" and "pure weight" can be developed. One thenfindsthat,
in men, "pure height" tends to relate to or predict playing the position
of center in basketball better, and "pure weight" better predicts or relates to playing the position of nose guard in football. In the present
context, residualized measures of "pure ER" and "pure IQ" were created. The residualized measure of ER, which controls or cancels the
effect of IQ, was then correlated with independently evaluated personality variables. Symmetrically, IQ was correlated with personality variables after controlling for or canceling the effect of ER. Thus, it became
feasible to identify the differential personality correlates of these two,
now essentially disentangled (or "pure") constructs.4
Note that, in the following analyses, there is complete independence
of the data domains being connected. Ego-resiliency is indexed by a
questionnaire (self-report data), IQ is indexed by the WAIS-R (testbased data), and the personality and behavioral information is represented by the CAQ items (observer-based data). Also, all of the analyses
are conducted for the sexes separately. Thus, replication is provided and
gender similarities and differences may be noted.
Results
Relation Between the Ego-Resiliency Index and WAISIQ
The correlations between the composite ER scale index and
IQ, as measured at age 18, were .10 (ns) in the female sample
and .31 (p < .05) in the male sample. The correlation for the
sample of girls was somewhat lower than anticipated, given previousfindingsat earlier ages in this sample. We conjecture that
this lowering devolves from and is a further reflection of another
finding of this longitudinal study—that girls during their adolescence and young adulthood manifest more psychological restructuring of their adaptive modes than do boys, who continue
into these years with much the same personalities established
earlier (J. Block, 1993).
Differential Personality Correlates of "Pure ER " and
"Pure IQ" in the Sample of Young Women
Table 2 reports the statistically significant personality CAQ
correlates of "pure ER" for the sample of young women at age
23. Interpreting the obtained relations, "pure ER" seems to relate to social poise and assertiveness and an absence of self-concern, rumination, and fearfulness. The ER young woman tends
to manifest gregariousness, cheerfulness, and playfulness; has a
sense of meaning in life and a rich but appropriate emotionality; and shows adaptiveness when under stress.5 She is comfortable with herself and with other people and does not overmodulate her control structures. Accordingly, she is spontaneous and
has ready access to sensuous experiences. We may summarily
characterize this young woman as a resilient undercontroller.
The young woman low on ER is characterized by a brittle overcontrol, a preoccupation with issues of self-adequacy, a chronic
sense of vulnerability, and an inability to engage in trusting,
353
collaborative, and satisfying relationships with others. We may
characterize this young woman as an unresilient overcontroller.
The statistically significant personality correlates of "pure
IQ" for the sample of young women are reported in Table 3.
Pure IQ correlates, as it conceptually should, with a variety of
CAQ intellective variables: intellectual capacity, the valuing of
intellectual matters, verbal fluency, a wide range of interests,
and esthetic reactivity. However, "pure IQ" in these young
women also relates to introspectiveness, a tendency to complicate simple situations, underlying anxiety, and a tendency to
ruminate and feel guilty. Overall, we may characterize these
young women as unhappily intellective. The young women at
the other end of this continuum, relatively low on "pure IQ,"
tend to be assertive, oriented toward sexuality, self-indulgent,
unbothered by or not cognizant of complexities. They seem to
be relatively shallow, action-oriented young women with some
tendencies toward undercontrol. Neither the high nor the low
"pure IQ" women are clearly characterizable in terms of ER.
Differential Personality Correlates of "Pure ER " and
"Pure IQ" in the Sample of Young Men
Table 4 reports the statistically significant personality CAQ
correlates of "pure ER" for the sample of young men at age 23.
Again, the CAQ item correlates indicate that "pure ER" relates
to social poise, gregariousness, cheerfulness, and an absence of
rumination and fearfulness. The ER young man is especially
characterized by a capacity for committment, responsibility,
ethical behavior, and sympathetic caring in his relationships
with others. He displays a rich and appropriate emotionality.
Like the ER young woman, the ER young man is comfortable
with self and with the world he lives in. In contrast, the low ER
young man is extrapunitive, manifests hostility, feels cheated in
life, is rebellious, is irritable, and hasfluctuatingmoods. Overall, his dealings with others and with the larger society are
chronically frictional.
The statistically significant personality correlates of "pure IQ"
for the sample of young men are reported in Table 5. Again, "pure
IQ" is characterized as it should be by a set of intellective variables:
intellectual capacity, the valuing of intellectual matters, a wide
range of interests, ambitiousness, productivity, and an objective
style. The young men characterized by high "pure IQ" are dependable, doggedly persistent, predictable individuals who are not
troubled by self-concerns. At the same time, they also tend to be
critical, fastidious, avoidant of or uneasy with sexuality, and emo4
Partial correlations may not fully reduce the influence of a variable
being controlled if the control variable is unreliable or lacks validity
(Cliff, 1987). However, in the present instance, both control variables
are relatively reliably measured. By tautological definition, the IQ score
used is a valid index of IQ; on conceptual grounds and on the basis of
the network of empirical relationships that surround it, the ER89 scale
may be considered to be usefully valid. However, to the extent that measure unreliability and invalidity are still present, the relations to be reported have been attenuated.
'Note that the item "expresses hostile feelings directly" in this
context does not mean that "pure ER" correlates with having a high
level of hostility. Rather, it means that when hostility happens to be
present, that hostility is expressed directly rather than indirectly.
354
BLOCK AND KREMEN
Table 2
CAQ Correlates ofEgo Resilience Controlling
for Intelligence in Women
CAQ item
92.
57.
4.
15.
52.
88.
18.
43.
84.
99.
20.
35.
58.
56.
67.
98.
74.
54.
96.
94.
31.
22.
72.
30.
40.
48.
25.
55.
78.
45.
68.
9.
36.
79.
47.
97.
69.
14.
23.
38.
49.
85.
Has social poise and presence.
Is an interesting, arresting person.
Is a talkative individual.
Skilled in social techniques of imaginative play.
Behaves in an assertive fashion.
Is personally charming.
Initiates humor.
Is facially and/or gesturally expressive.
Is cheerful.
Is self-dramatizing; histrionic.
Has a rapid personal tempo; behaves and acts quickly.
Has warmth; capacity for close relationships.
Enjoys sensuous experiences.
Responds to humor.
Is self-indulgent.
Is verbally
fluent.
Unaware of self-concern, satisfied with self.
Emphasizes being with others; gregarious.
Values own independence and autonomy.
Expresses hostile feelings directly.
Regards self as physically attractive.
Feels a lack of personal meaning in life.
Concerned with own personal adequacy.
Gives up and withdraws from frustration, adversity.
Is vulnerable to real or fancied threat; fearful.
Keeps people at a distance, avoids relationships.
Tends toward overcontrol of needs and impulses.
Is self-defeating.
Feels cheated and victimized by life.
Brittle ego defense; maladaptive under stress.
Is basically anxious.
Is uncomfortable with uncertainty and complexities.
Is subtly negativistic; undermines and obstructs.
Tends to ruminate and have preoccupying thoughts.
Has a readiness to feel guilt.
Is emotionally bland.
Is sensitive to demands.
Genuinely submissive; accepts domination
comfortably.
Extrapunitive; tends to transfer or project blame.
Has hostility towards others.
Is basically distrustful.
Emphasizes communication through nonverbal
behavior.
sr
.52**
.51**
.50**
.49**
.46**
.46**
.44**
.44**
.43**
.41**
.39**
.37*
.37**
.36*
.36*
.36*
.34*
.33*
.33*
.30*
.29*
-.60**
-.56**
-.55**
—.51**
-.46**
—.44**
-.44**
-.43**
—.42**
-.40**
-.39**
—.39**
-.39**
-.38**
-.37**
—.35*
—.34*
—.32*
-.31*
-.29*
-.29*
Note. N = 49. CAQ = California Q-sort. sr = semipartial correlation.
*p<.05. **p<.0l.
tionally bland. Behaviorally overcontrolled within the context of
intellective productivity, these young men may be characterized as
resilient overcontrollers. At the other end of the continuum, the
young men low on "pure IQ" are impressively self-indulgent, volatile, limit-testing, sexually oriented, inarticulate, maladaptive,
and self-defeating. Overall, the young men low on "pure IQ" may
be characterized as unresilient undercontrollers.
Differences in the Correlates of "PureER"and "PurelQ"
An especially clear way of highlighting the difference between
"pure ER" and "pure IQ" is to identify the CAQ personality variables in which the correlation with "pure ER" is significantly
different from the correlation with "pure IQ." Table 6 presents
these very different correlations for the sample of young women.
Relatively, "pure ER" is characterized by assertiveness, direct expression of feelings, positive self-regard, social poise and presence,
playfulness, an ability to establish interpersonal relationships, and
an absence of self-concern, ruminativeness, and fearfumess. Relatively, "pure IQ" is characterized by a set of intellective variables
but also by internal preoccupations, the indirect expression of angry feelings, an absence of interest in members of the opposite sex
and an uneasiness with sensuous experiences, avoidance of selfindulgence, and submissiveness.
For the sample of young men (see Table 7), the very different
CAQ correlations indicate that "pure ER" is characterized by the
direct expression of feelings, gregariousness, cheerfulness, protectiveness, a capacity for warmth and intimacy, and a relative absence of distrust of others and of interpersonal hostility. "Pure IQ"
in the young men is characterized by the expectable set of intellective variables but also by condescending behavior, being unconcerned about self-adequacy, unexpressiveness, and interpersonal
detachment and coldness.
Gender Differences in the Correlates of "Pure ER" and
"PurelQ"
There are similarities between the sexes in the CAQ correlates
of "pure ER" and "pure IQ." A simple way of quantifying the
degree of these similarities is to correlate the vector of 100 CAQ
"pure ER" (or "pure IQ") partialed correlates of the young
women with the vector of 100 CAQ ER (or pure IQ) partialed
Table 3
CAQ Correlates ofIntelligence Controlling
for Ego-Resilience in Women
CAQ item
8.
51.
3.
66.
16.
87.
98.
90.
60.
68.
76.
57.
71.
79.
47.
52.
80.
29.
53.
86.
95.
9.
11.
54.
Appears to have high intellectual capacity.
Genuinely values intellectual and cognitive matters.
Has a wide range of interests.
Enjoys aesthetic impressions; aesthetically reactive.
Is introspective.
Complicates simple situations.
Is verbally fluent.
Concerned with philosophical problems.
Has insight into own motives and behavior.
Is basically anxious.
Projects own feelings and motivations onto others.
Is an interesting, arresting person.
Has high aspiration level for self.
Tends to ruminate and have pre-occupying thoughts.
Has a readiness to feel guilt.
Behaves in an assertive fashion.
Interested in members of the opposite sex.
Is turned to for advice and reassurance.
Unable to delay gratification.
Denies unpleasant thoughts and experiences.
Tends to proffer advice.
Is uncomfortable with uncertainty and complexities.
Is protective of those close to him or her.
Emphasizes being with others; gregarious.
sr
.61**
.57**
.52**
.52**
.49**
.46**
.45**
.39**
.37**
.37**
.37**
.35*
.31*
.30*
.29*
—.38*
-.37**
—.36*
-.36*
—.32*
-.32*
—.31*
-.31*
—.30*
Note. N = 49. CAQ = California Q-sort. sr = semipartial correlation.
*p<.05.
**p<.0l.
355
IQ AND EGO-RESILIENCY
Table 4
CAQ Correlates ofEgo Resilience Controlling
for Intelligence in Men
CAQ item
sr
Is a genuinely dependable and responsible person.
Appears straightforward, candid.
Is protective of those close to him or her.
Has warmth; capacity for close relationships.
Behaves in a sympathetic or considerate manner.
Is productive; gets things done.
Behaves in an ethically consistent manner.
Clear-cut, internally consistent personality.
Is cheerful.
Emphasizes being with others; gregarious.
Behaves in a giving way with others.
Is turned to for advice and reassurance.
Unaware of self-concern, satisfied with self.
Favors conservative values in a variety of areas.
Tends to arouse liking and acceptance.
Responds to humor.
Tends to proffer advice.
Has social poise and presence.
Has a wide range of interests.
Is a talkative individual.
Calm, relaxed in manner.
Is fastidious (perfectionist).
Genuinely submissive; accepts domination comfortably.
Has a readiness to feel guilt.
Has high aspiration level for self.
Is basically distrustful.
Is self-defeating.
Characteristically pushes limits.
Feels a lack of personal meaning in life.
Is guileful and deceitful; manipulative.
Unpredictable and changeable behavior, attitudes.
Tends to be rebellious and nonconforming.
Feels cheated and victimized by life.
Has hostility toward others.
Brittle ego defense; maladaptive under stress.
Tends to ruminate and have preoccupying thoughts.
Extrapunitive; tends to transfer or project blame.
Gives up and withdraws from frustration, adversity.
Is subtly negativistic; undermines and obstructs.
Delays or avoids action.
Has fluctuating moods.
Engages in personal fantasy and daydreams.
Is sensitive to demands.
Values own independence and autonomy.
Keeps people at a distance, avoids relationships.
Overreactive to minor frustrations, irritable.
Is basically anxious.
Evaluates the motivation of others.
Emphasizes communication through nonverbal
behavior.
39. Thinks and associates ideas in unusual ways.
.60**
.55**
.53**
.53**
.52**
.50**
.50**
.47**
.47**
.46**
.45**
.45**
.43**
.42**
.40**
.40**
.38*
.34*
.33*
.33*
.32*
.31*
.31*
.31*
.31*
-.58**
.56**
-.56**
-.53**
-.53**
-.51**
.51**
-.50**
-.48**
-.47**
-.46**
-.45**
-.42**
-.41**
-.41**
-.41**
.38*
.38**
-.38**
-.37*
-.36*
-.33*
-.32*
2.
77.
11.
35.
17.
26.
70.
75.
84.
54.
5.
29.
74.
7.
28.
56.
95.
92.
3.
4.
33.
6.
14.
47.
71.
49.
55.
65.
22.
37.
50.
62.
78.
38.
45.
79.
23.
30.
36.
42.
82.
46.
69.
96.
48.
34.
68.
44.
85.
-.32*
-.30*
Note. N = 46. CAQ = California Q-sort. sr = semipartial correlation.
*p<.05. **p<.01.
correlates for the young men. The resulting values are, respectively, .47 for "pure ER" and .61 for "pure IQ." Thus, broadly,
there is appreciable patterning correspondence between the
sexes. However, there are important differences as well between
the sexes.
Table 8 presents the CAQ correlates of "pure ER" that significantly differ between the sexes. The "pure ER" woman, rel-
ative to the "pure ER" man, values her independence, is selfindulgent, colorful, interpersonally skilled, relatively less overcontrolled, and not submissive. In contrast, the "pure ER"
man, relative to the "pure ER" woman, is characterized by ethical and responsible behavior to others, by conservatism, by predictability and internal consistency, and by an acceptance of the
limits provided by society.
The significantly differing gender CAQ correlates of "pure
IQ" also are presented in Table 9. Although the number of
differences is relatively small, their content is psychologically
coherent. In allfiveinstances, the young men are relatively more
unemotional, unintrospective, personally secure, emphasizing
of calm and critical rationality.
As a way of summarizing the core of our many gender-related
findings, it is useful to invoke a prototype approach (J. Block,
1957, 1961/1978). Each of the 100 CAQ items has a value indicating its conceptual salience in defining ego control. These values
were derived by having psychologists arrange the items so as to
portray their understanding of the prototypical overcontroller. The
Table 5
CAQ Correlates ofIntelligence Controllingfor Ego
Resilience in Men
CAQ item
8. Appears to have high intellectual capacity.
90. Concerned with philosophical problems.
51. Genuinely values intellectual and cognitive
matters.
24. Prides self on being "objective," rational.
3. Has a wide range of interests.
1. Is critical, skeptical, not easily impressed.
25. Tends toward over-control of needs and impulses.
26. Is productive; gets things done.
98. Is verbally fluent.
6. Is fastidious (perfectionist).
71. Has high aspiration level for self.
33. Calm, relaxed in manner.
2. Is a genuinely dependable and responsible person.
97. Is emotionally bland.
83. Able to see to the heart of important problems.
74. Unaware of self-concern, satisfied with self.
53. Unable to delay gratification.
67. Is self-indulgent.
50. Unpredictable and changeable behavior, attitudes.
55. Is self-defeating.
65. Characteristically pushes limits.
73. Perceives many contexts in sexual terms.
85. Emphasizes communication through nonverbal
behavior.
59. Concerned with body and adequacy of its
functioning.
45. Brittle ego defense; maladaptive under stress.
30. Gives up and withdraws from frustration,
adversity.
89. Compares self to others.
82. Hasfluctuatingmoods.
9. Is uncomfortable with uncertainty and
complexities.
56. Responds to humor.
62. Tends to be rebellious and nonconforming.
sr
.72**
.64**
.61**
.57**
.55**
.54**
.50**
.48**
.46**
.42**
.42**
.36*
.34*
.33*
.32*
.30*
-.57**
-.48**
-.41**
-.36*
-.35*
-.35*
-.35*
-.34*
-.33*
-.32*
-.32*
-.31*
-.30*
-.30*
-.30*
Note. N = 46. CAQ = California Q-sort. sr - semipartial correlation.
*p<.05 **p<.01.
356
BLOCK AND KREMEN
Table 6
Significantly Different CAQ Correlates of "Pure ER " and
"Pure IQ" in Women
CAQ item
52.
92.
58.
4.
54.
67.
53.
29.
15.
95.
84.
96.
18.
74.
80.
56.
94.
99.
20.
43.
91.
68.
8.
25.
22.
79.
40.
47.
87.
51.
72.
48.
45.
14.
90.
30.
Behaves in an assertive fashion.
Has social poise and presence.
Enjoys sensuous experiences.
Is a talkative individual.
Emphasizes being with others; gregarious.
Is self-indulgent.
Unable to delay gratification.
Is turned to for advice and reassurance.
Is skilled in social techniques of
imaginative play.
Tends to proffer advice.
Is cheerful.
Values own independence and autonomy.
Initiates humor.
Unaware of self-concern, satisfied with self.
Interested in members of the opposite sex.
Responds to humor.
Expresses hostile feelings directly.
Is self-dramatizing; histrionic.
Has a rapid personal tempo; behaves and
acts quickly.
Is facially and/or gesturally expressive.
Is power oriented.
Is basically anxious.
Appears to have high intellectual capacity.
Tends toward overcontrol of needs and
impulses.
Feels a lack of personal meaning in life.
Tends to ruminate and have pre-occupying
thoughts.
Is vulnerable to real or fancied threat;
fearful.
Has a readiness to feel guilt.
Particularizes situations.
Genuinely values intellectual and cognitive
matters.
Concerned with own personal adequacy.
Keeps people at a distance, avoids
relationships.
Brittle ego-defense; maladaptive under
stress.
Genuinely submissive; accepts domination
comfortably.
Concerned with philosophical problems.
Gives up and withdraws from frustration,
adversity.
Z score ER
IQ
3.95
3.51
3.11
3.03
3.00
2.88
2.84
2.78
.44
.52
.36
.50
.32
.35
.22
.20
-.34
-.16
-.26
-.08
-.29
-.23
-.35
-.36
2.72
2.69
2.60
2.59
2.58
2.54
2.49
2.39
2.31
2.30
.49
.23
.43
.32
.44
.34
.14
.36
.30
.41
-.03
-.32
-.08
-.20
-.07
-.18
-.36
-.12
-.18
-.05
2.27
2.23
2.05
-3.66
-3.40
.39 -.06
.44 .00
.15 -.27
.38 .35
-.01 .60
-3.35
-3.31
-.43
.60
.24
.00
-3.31
-.38
.28
3.26 -.51
3.18 -.37
3.10 -.15
.12
.27
.46
-3.02
-2.77
.01 .57
-.55 -.05
-2.74 -.46
.07
-2.28 -.42
.03
-2.18
-2.16
.34
.04
.10
.39
-2.00 -.53
.17
Note. N = 49. CAQ = California Q-sort. ER = ego resiliency.
p < .05. for all comparisons.
composite of these prototypes proved to be highly reproducible
(coefficient alpha of .90). In the present study, the congruence of
the prototype with each participant's observer-based age-23 CAQ
was calculated. A congruence score, when high, indicates the person is relatively overcontrolled; when low, it indicates the person is
relatively undercontrolled. These ego-control congruence scores
were correlated with both "pure ER" and "pure IQ," separately
by sex. For the young women, "pure ER" correlated -.47 (p <
.001) with overcontrol, whereas "pure IQ" correlated .14 (ns)
with overcontrol; the difference between these two correlations is
highly significant (p < .001). In contrast, for the young men,
"pure ER" correlated .25 (ns) with overcontrol, whereas "pure
IQ" correlated .46 (p < .002). The difference between the sexes in
regard to their correlations of pure ER with the prototype-based
index of ego control is itself highly significant (p < .001). Thus,
relative undercontrol seems to characterize the resilient young
women, whereas relative overcontrol tends to characterize the
"pure-IQ" young men.
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that deep differences exist
in the personality and adaptive implications of ego-resiliency
and IQ when measures essentially "purified" of the overlap between the two constructs are used. Certainly, the differences between "pure ER" and "pure IQ" require additional, more refined efforts at understanding. Even now, however, the findings
testify to the characterological consequentiality, in both sexes,
of both ego-resiliency and IQ. Although in the natural world,
ego-resiliency and IQ by their respective natures must depend
on or reinforce each other, the somewhat artificial way of en-
Table 7
Significantly Different CAQ Correlates of "Pure ER" and
"Pure IQ" in Men
CAQ item
54. Emphasizes being with others;
gregarious.
56. Responds to humor.
11. Is protective of those close to him.
17. Behaves in a sympathetic or considerate
manner.
35. Has warmth; capacity for close
relationships.
4. Is a talkative individual.
95. Tends to proffer advice.
43. Is facially and/or gesturally expressive.
59. Concerned with body and adequacy of its
functioning.
18. Initiates humor.
75. Clear-cut, internally consistent
personality.
84. Is cheerful.
5. Behaves in a giving way with others.
28. Tends to arouse liking and acceptance.
29. Is turned to for advice and reassurance.
1. Is critical, skeptical, not easily impressed.
8. Appears to have high intellectual
capacity.
90. Concerned with philosophical problems.
9. Is basically distrustful.
79. Tends to ruminate and have preoccupying thoughts.
69. Is sensitive to demands.
44. Evaluates the motivation of others.
51. Genuinely values intellectual and
cognitive matters.
96. Values own independence and
autonomy.
38. Has hostility towards others.
37. Is guileful and deceitful; manipulative.
Z score
ER
IQ
3.47
3.28
3.20
.46 -.25
.39 -.29
.53 -.10
3.00
.52 -.07
2.79
2.70
2.70
2.32
.52
.33
.37
.25
2.27
2.21
.13 -.34
.29 -.17
2.21
2.14
2.13
2.03
2.03
4.00
.46
.02
.04
.46
.45
.02
.40 -.02
.44
.04
-.25
.54
3.68
3.04
2.95
.06
.06
-.57
.69
.62
.00
2.80
2.39
2.25
-.46
-.38
-.32
.10
.12
.15
2.25
.17
.57
2.14
2.00
1.96
-.38
-.47
-.51
.06
-.07
-.13
Note. N = 46. CAQ = California Q-sort. ER = ego resiliency.
p < .05 for all comparisons.
-.02
-.23
-.19
-.24
IQ AND EGO-RESILIENCY
Table 8
Sex Differences in CAQ Correlates of "Pure ER"
CAQ item
Z score Women Men
96. Values own independence and
autonomy.
62. Tends to be rebellious and nonconforming.
67. Is self-indulgent.
50. Unpredictable and changeable behavior,
attitudes.
99. Is self-dramatizing; histrionic.
65. Characteristically pushes limits.
57. Is an interesting, arresting person.
73. Perceives many contexts in sexual
terms.
53. Unable to delay gratification.
20. Has a rapid personal tempo; behaves
and acts quickly.
15. Is skilled in social techniques of
imaginative play.
47. Has a readiness to feel guilt.
14. Genuinely submissive; accepts
domination comfortably.
7. Favors conservative values in a variety
of areas.
25. Tends toward over-control of needs and
impulses.
70. Behaves in an ethically consistent
manner.
2. Is a genuinely dependable and
responsible person.
11. Is protective of those close to him or her.
17. Behaves in a sympathetic or considerate
manner.
5. Behaves in a giving way with others.
6. Is fastidious (perfectionist).
75. Clear-cut, internally consistent
personality.
3.45
.32
-.38
2.72
2.72
.08
.35
-.46
-.21
2.61
2.59
2.56
2.33
.08
.41
.00
.48
-.44
-.11
-.50
.03
2.13
2.06
.28
.22
-.17
-.21
2.01
.39
-.01
1.99
-3.30
.49
-.37
.11
.31
-3.18
-.34
.31
-3.05
-.21
.41
-2.81
-.43
.14
-2.76
-.09
.46
-2.67
-2.45
.04
.07
.54
.53
-2.42
-2.37
-2.05
.06
-.02
-.15
.52
.45
.27
-2.00
.07
.46
Note. Nwomen = 49; iVmen = 46. CAQ = California Q-sort.
p < .05 for all comparisons.
forcing their distinctiveness used here provides some important
recognitions regarding their unique implications: The ER person tends to be more oriented toward, competent, and comfortable in the "fuzzier" interpersonal world, in which life is largely
led; the person denned too exclusively by raw IQ tends to be
Table 9
Sex Differences in CAQ Correlates of "Pure IQ"
CAQ item
1. Is critical, skeptical, not easily
impressed.
24. Prides self on being "objective,"
rational.
33. Calm, relaxed in manner.
74. Unaware of self-concern, satisfied
with self.
97. Is emotionally bland.
Z score
Women
Men
-2.30
0.12
0.54
-2.06
-2.75
0.15
-0.24
0.53
0.33
-2.09
-1.98
-0.18
-0.08
0.26
0.33
Note. Women, N = 49;JMen, N = 46. CAQ = California Q-sort.
p < .05 for all comparisons;
357
admirably productive and effective in the "clearer" world of
work, but tends also to be uneasy with affect and less able to
realize satisfying human connections.
In regard to the ER89 scale used to index ER, it appears that
the scale elicited, in both sexes, a set of observer-based CAQ
findings that, by their conceptual coherence, reciprocally support its construct validity.6 Other research further testifies to
the encompassing possibilities afforded by the ER89 scale (e.g.,
Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993). Consideration of the item content of the scale suggests that the individual scoring high has energy and zest about life, is curious and
open to new experience, recovers readily from stressful experiences, does not hold grudges, is likable to self and to others, and
likes other people and is generous with them. In short, the scale
describes a personally secure and vital individual who savors
being. Although incremental ER89 scale refinements may be
expected, further usage of the scale in its present form would
seem to be appropriate.
Notwithstanding the important gender similarities characterizing the implications of "pure ER" and "pure IQ," important
gender differences also were found. We suggest that the differential implications of "pure ER" for the sexes may be understood in terms of the different sex roles prescribed by societal
institutions, customs, and normative scripts. The different socialization pressures experienced by girls, as opposed to boys,
are known to affect the forms, styles, and repertoire of ways in
which the interpersonal world is negotiated (J. H. Block, 1983).
In particular, it has been noted that often, and in some subcultures even normatively, girls tend to be oversocialized to control
impulse, with the goal of reinforcing caution and compliance.
In the present study, "pure ER" was associated with a moving
away from overcontrol in the young women. We suggest that the
relative undercontrol of the ER young woman may function to
alleviate pervasive, often unacknowledged societal pressures to
overly inhibit impulse. Such pressures often may lead to constriction of affect, to indecisiveness, to passivity, and to the unhappy pattern of symptoms conventionally labeled as intemalization disorders. In contrast, in successfully achieving impulse
expression within the given societal parameters, the ER young
woman has become a spontaneous, poised, autonomous individual, gratifying to self and to others.
For boys, socialization serves the goal of developing structures that function to modulate aggression, an important function of ego-resilience. It will be noted that a number of the CAQ
items uniquely associated with "pure ER" depict the capacity
of these young men to engage in close, warm, and intimate relationships and to exhibit responsible and ethical behavior toward others. These young men have learned to mitigate and
modulate the antisocial, hostile, and interpersonally destructive
behaviors associated with ego-brittleness. In young women, the
interpersonal achievement of controlled and reduced aggres6
It is relevant to note the correlation between ER scale scores (based
on self-report) and ER CAQ prototype scores (based on observer data).
For the young women, the correlation between these two kinds of scores
is .50 (.69 when adjusted for attenuation); for the young men, the correlation is .61 (.84 when adjusted for attenuation). Thus, these two
method-different ways of operationally denning ego-resilience display
appreciable construct convergence.
358
BLOCK AND KREMEN
siveness is not as highly associated with ego-resiliency because
of their generally lower characteristic levels of aggressiveness.
As noted above, there are meager differences between the
sexes in their respective CAQ-item correlations with "pure IQ."
We suggest that the relative absence of gender differences in IQ
correlates may be due to intrinsic limitations on the ways in
which, developmentally, intelligence can be manifested or
shaped. In Piagetian terms, movement toward intelligence is
linked to increasingly veridical perceptions and logical recognitions regarding the physical world. These perceptions and recognitions are achieved and articulated regarding a world that
provides consistent and predictable feedback. Such adaptations
to an inexorable physical world thus offer less opportunity for
modification by gender role influences. In the interpersonal
world, however, feedback and reinforcement are often inconsistent and admit of varying meaning-making constructions. In
such a fuzzy world, more varied (and gender-role influenced)
pathways to adaptation may be found (J. Block, 1982).
Despite these strong correspondences between the sexes in
the personality implications of "pure IQ," there still remain a
few gender differences. These may be regarded, tentatively, as
differences in flavor or quality in the adaptive significance of
intelligence for the two sexes. In particular, "pure IQ" was associated with overcontrol in men but not in women. Along with
intellective abilities and productivity, the personality items
linked to "pure IQ" in the sample of young men denoted tendencies to be critical, sometimes condescending, unemotional,
and overly constricted. The high-IQ young men, in the relative
absence of ER, seem to have internalized a sense of self as competent and superior to most others; they have developed a highly
agentic view of themselves, perhaps through their successful
mastery of the physical world. These achievements may have
been realized at some personal (and unacknowledged) cost of
achieving interpersonal intimacy. In particular, in the absence
of ego-resiliency, the intelligent man may overly rely on intellective strengths that may foreclose his spontaneity and emotional
openness.
In contrast, in the high-IQ young women, it is not apparent
that their intelligence has contributed to a sense of self as highly
competent, agentic, and masterful. Rather, beyond the usual
items depicting intellective abilities and an intellectual orientation, the high-IQ young woman is characterized by a tendency
toward anxiety, rumination, guilt, and introspectiveness.
The low-IQ young man seems vulnerable to self-doubt and is
pervaded by a sense of being unable to overcome the obstacles
in his world. The low-IQ young woman, compared with the lowIQ young man, is less preoccupied by feelings of inadequacy
and is less sensitive to the adverse life consequences of her own
undercontrol. It may be conjectured that, in this society, IQ per
se is not as crucial to female adult-life options or to self-esteem
as it is to male adult-life options and self-esteem. The less intelligent young woman can still develop social competencies and
other bases for attraction and affirmation that permit her to feel
comfortable with self. For young men, however, striving for success and respect is paramount and intelligence is often crucially
required. Low-IQ men are likely to falter in this race, know they
have faltered, and come to believe their world is uncontrollable
and unresponsive.
These results suggest that IQ may serve as a personally pro-
tective (albeit not optimizing) factor for men in the absence of
ego-resilience, whereas it is not so closely linked to private adaptation in young women. Intelligence may serve to support or
complement a sense of self in men, which is already defined in
terms of agency, by enabling increased agentic mastery of the
world. That is, for men, intelligence represents a means through
which they can implement the agentic, masculine roles prescribed by sex-linked socialization patterns, and, therefore,
when intelligence is present, it serves to shore up self-esteem.
However, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is less of a prerequisite for competence in the interpersonal world, the arena of
competence which is especially valued in feminine, communal
models of self. Thus, high intelligence may have less affirmative
significance for a sense of self in young women than does, for a
prime example, physical and social attractiveness. When beginning to orient themselves toward interpersonal connection,
thoughtful girls will be anguished by the societal insinuation
that brainy girls are likely to be less desirable. Accordingly, selfuncertainties evolve and their self-esteem may suffer (J. Block
& Robins, 1993). In this connection, it merits mention that
IQ and depression are positively linked in young women and
negatively related in young men (J. Block etal., 1991).
For larger theoretical reasons, we may return now to consider
views of intelligence that go well beyond narrowly defining it in
terms of IQ. For an attractive and influential example, Sternberg (1985b) has defined intelligence as "consisting] of those
mental functions purposively employed for purposes of adaptation to and shaping and selection of real-world environments"
(p. 1111). Steinberg's aspiration for an all-encompassing theory of intelligence with practical implications and real-life validity has led him, with others (e.g., Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987;
Ford & Tisak, 1983; Keating, 1978) to expand the conceptual
domain of intelligence to include and even emphasize the idea
of social competence or "social intelligence."
These enlarged views seem to us to have introduced many
new considerations. Central among them is the explicit introduction of an "executive" or of "executive processes" directing
and sequencing more elementary perceptual, knowledge, and
action processes. Carroll (1976) has observed that "the assumption of an executive process [for intelligent behavior]. . .
seems an intuitive necessity if one is going to get the system
in operation" (p. 31). Sternberg (1985b) found it helpful to
characterize "[intelligence as mental self-government" (p.
1117). Campione and Brown (1978) noted that "intelligence
differences are attributable to variations in the efficiency of the
executive, or in the quality of control that executive exerts" (p.
297). Many thinkers—on intelligence and on cognition more
generally—when viewing the complexity and organization of
behavior have found it theoretically required to posit or presume some such wide-ranging, albeit difficult to specify, systemregulatory executive principle (e.g., the "Central Executive" of
Baddeley, 1986).
However, as Dennett (1981) has observed,
Any time a theory builder proposes to call any event, state, structure, etc., in any system (say the brain of an organism) a signal or
message or command or otherwise endows it with content, he. . .
implicitly posits along with his signals, messages, or commands
something that can serve as a signal-reader, a message-under-
359
IQ AND EGO-RESILIENCY
slander, or commander, else his signals will be for nought, will decay changing complex of desires and reality constraints—that is the
unreceived, uncomprehended. (p. 12)
primary basis of long-term adaptability. It is in the regulation of
Thus, it appears that cognitive psychologists have not escaped
the dreaded homunculus. Specification of this nebulously definable but inescapably required integrative system is a continuing, slowly progressing goal of psychology. Headway is being
made (see, e.g., Posner & Rothbart, 1992), but the way is long.
In the meantime, even though as yet unspecifiable, the concept
of an integrating "executive" can serve as a useful, even necessary heuristic.
Certainly, the more recent and broader "executive" representations of intelligence are attractive because of their greater real
life relevance for the way individuals indeed function. However,
it should be recognized that these elaborated, executive-emphasizing descriptive formulations of intelligence, although using
different terminology or metaphor systems, overlap considerably with the construct of ego-resiliency advanced above. Both
conceptual approaches involve "executive processes."
There is a crucial difference, however, between intelligence as
now often broadly conceived and the construct of ego-resilience
that, we suggest, should not be blurred.
The biosocial problem of the individual is adaptation. Insufficiencies of adaptation are signaled to the individual by the
intrusion of affect. Yet, current expanded conceptions of intelligence have remained "cognitive" and still largely ignore affective and motivational aspects of behavior. Although intelligence
is often fused and even equated with adaptation (Charlesworth,
1976; Piaget, 1954), there are ways of emotion-resolving adaptation that do not use cognition in the usual sense of information processing or rational solving behavior addressed toward
proximal and readily specifiable problems.7
The capacity for cognitive problem-solving behavior has
evolved as a most powerful means of affective adaptation, but it
must be remembered that it is adaptation that is the key, and "intelligence" is but one way. Some affect-managing adaptive structures and processes exist as inborn (e.g., reflexes of various kinds,
genetically providedfixedor modal action patterns promoting the
adaptive strategies of perseveration and exploration). Other affectmanaging strategems are achieved by the individual (e.g., nonfalsifiable attributions, intellectualization, rationalization, deliberate
uninvolvement in should-be involving situations, niche-picking to
avoid anxiety-inducing circumstances, the invoking of paranoia
or retreat to hysteria, narcissism, and so on—all personality constructions that may provide adaptive affect resolutions for the
individual). Intrapsychic construals or redefinitions or action patterns may be formed within the individual as affect-regulating
adaptive solutions (even if formally irrational or "unintelligent").
Moreover, these often go undiscorroborated or are interwoven
with otherwise effective means of adaptation. The existence of psychologically "satisficing" adaptations that may seem to be "unintelligent" from a strictly "rational" standpoint makes it necessary
to recognize the large domain of motivation and personality. •
Within that domain, "intelligence" and much of what is
viewed as cognition can be viewed as providing a means—an
extraordinarily versatile and effective means often, but not the
only means—of achieving or enhancing adaptation. More than
intelligence per se, we suggest it is ego-resiliency—the capacity
of the individual to effectively modulate and monitor an ever-
the individual's affective and motivational pushes and pulls,
given the existing possibilities and constraints in the social environment, that the construct of ego-resiliency comes into play.
On such passionate, "hot" matters, even the contemporary, enlarged cognitive constructions of intelligence seem to be unavailing and "cold."
Finally, we remark specifically, if only briefly, on the relation
of ego-resiliency to the popular and frequently referenced concept of "social intelligence" (as compared with what may be
called "intellective intelligence"—i.e., IQ). There has been a
long "search for social intelligence." For useful historical reviews of the several ways in which the construct of social intelligence has been construed, see Brody (1992), Sternberg and
Smith (1985), and Walker and Foley (1973). As we have already observed, the emphasis on social intelligence has sought
to go beyond a definition of intelligence solely in the narrow,
cognitive information-processing, IQ sense. A recent study by
Kosmitzki and John (1993) of the common understandings underlying the idea of "social intelligence" has usefully identified
the following qualities as "most central" to the meaning of the
concept: understanding people, being good in dealing with people, being warm and caring, being open to new experiences and
ideas, having perspective-taking ability, knowing social rules
and norms, and having social adaptability. Reasoning from the
psychological meaning of our reported constellation of findings,
we suggest that these various aspects of "social intelligence"
may well be subsumed under the construct of ego-resiliency as
defined and elaborated here.
The present study has brought forward the importantly
different personality implications of ego-resilience and intellective intelligence (IQ), which previously have been obscured because the concepts are also related. Although further study of
the links between ego-resilience and intelligence will be useful
and productive, understandings will be advanced if the two constructs are considered as conceptually distinct.
7
Damasio (1994), the eminent neurologist, has recently argued
equivalently in decrying the preoccupation of neuroscience with cognition as the denning feature of brain function. For Damasio, emotions
evolved to provide "leverage for survival" (p. 261) and crucially influence reason.
References
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon
Press.
Block, J. (1950). An experimental investigation ofthe construct ofegocontrol. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Block, J. (1957). A comparison between ipsative and normative ratings
of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 5054.
Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets: Unconfounding meaning, acquiescence and social desirability in the MMPI. New 'York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
(Original work published 1961)
Block, J. (1981). Some enduring and consequential structures of per-
360
BLOCK AND KREMEN
sonality. In A. I. Rabin, J. Aronoff, A. M. Barclay, & R. A. Zucker
(Eds.), Further explorations in personality (pp. 27-43). New York:
Wiley.
Block, J. (19S2). Assimilation, accommodation, and the dynamics of
personality development. Child Development, 53, 281-295.
Block, J. (1993). Studying personality the long way. In D. C. Funder,
R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasy, & K. Widarnan (Eds.), Studying
lives through time. Personality and development (pp. 9-41). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Block, J., Block, J. H., & Harrington, D. M. (1974). Some misgivings
about the Matching Familiar Figures Test as a measure of reflectionimpulsivity, Developmental Psychology, 10, 611-632.
Block, J., Block, J. H., & Keyes, S. (1988). Longitudinally foretelling
drug use in adolescence: Early childhood personality and environmental precursors. Child Development, 59, 336-355.
Block, J., Gjerde, P. F., & Block, J. H. (1991). Personality antecedents
of depressive tendencies in 18-year-olds: A prospective study. Journal
ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 726-738.
Block, J., & Robins, R. W. (1993). A longitudinal study of consistency
and change in self-esteem from early adolescence to early adulthood.
Child Development, 64, 909-923.
Block, J. H. (1951). An experimental study ofa topological representation of ego-structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University.
Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54,
1335-1354.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), The
Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39-101).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, J. H., & Martin, B. (1955). Predicting the behavior of children
under frustration. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51,
281-285.
Boring, E. G. (1923, June 6). Intelligence as the tests test it. New Republic, pp. 35-37.
Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A
problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Campione, J. C, & Brown, A. L. (1978). Toward a theory of intelligence: Contributions from research with retarded children. Intelligence, 2, 279-304.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Carroll, J. B. (1976). Psychometric tests as cognitive tasks: A new
"Structure of Intellect." In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature ofintelligence (pp. 27-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Charlesworth, W. R. (1976), Human intelligence as adaptation. In
L. B. Resnick(Ed.), The nature ofintelligence (pp. 147-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cliff, N. (1987). Analyzing multivariate data. San Diego, CA: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.
Dennett, D. C. (1981). Brainstorms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Epstein, S. (1994). An integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking: A broad coping
variable with specific components. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 57, 332-350.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychotkism as a dimension of personality. London: Hodder& Stoughton.
Ford, M. E., & Tisak, M. S. (1983). A further search for social intelligence. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 75, 196-206.
Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. New
York: Norton.
Gazzaniga, M. S. (1989). Organization of the human brain. Science,
245, 947-952.
Hauser, S. T, Vieyra, M. A. B., Jacobson, A. M., & Wertlieb, D. (1985).
Vulnerability and resilience in adolescence: Views from the family.
Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 5, 81-100.
Jensen, A. R. (1993). Psychometric g and achievement. In B. R. Gifford
(Ed.), Policy perspectives on educational testing (pp. 117-227). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Keating, D. P. (1978). A search for social intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,218-223.
Kosmitzki, C, & John, O. P. (1993). The implicit use of explicit conceptions of social intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences,
15, 11-23.
Kosslyn, S. M., & Koenig, O. (1992). Wet mind: The new cognitive neuroscience. New York: Free Press.
Kuhl, J., & Kraska, K. (1989). Self-regulation and metamotivation:
Computational mechanisms, development, and assessment. In R.
Kanfer, P. L. Ackerman, & R. Cudeck (Eds.), The Minnesota Symposium on Learning and IndividualDifferences (pp. 343-374). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lezak, M. D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lynam, D., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining
the relation between IQ and delinquency: Class, race, test motivation,
school failure, or self-control? Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 102,
187-196.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome
adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2,425-444.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New
York: Guilford Press.
Milgram, N. A., & Palti, G. (1993). Psychosocial characteristics of resilient children. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 27, 207-221.
Momtt, T. E. (1993). The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 135-151.
Patterson, C. M., & Newman, J. P. (1993). Reflectivity and learning
from aversive events: Toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological Review, 100, 716-736.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York:
Basic Books.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (1992). Attentional mechanisms and
conscious experience. In A. D. Milner & M. D. Rugg (Eds.), The
neuropsychology ofconsciousness (pp. 91-111). London: Academic
Press.
Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms.
In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weinstraub (Eds.),
Risk and protectivefactors in the development of psychopathology (pp.
181-214). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Stemberg, R. J. (1985a). Beyond IQ. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Human intelligence: The model is the message. Science, 230,1111-1118.
Steinberg, R. J. (1990), Metaphors of mind. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Smith, C. (1985). Social intelligence and decoding
skills in nonverbal communication. Social Cognition, 3, 168-192.
361
IQ AND EGO-RESILIENCY
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H.
Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp.
681-706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Walker, R. E., & Foley, J. M. (1973). Social intelligence: Its history and
measurement. Psychological Reports, 33, 839-864.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manualfor the Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleRevised. New \brk: Psychological Corporation.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M.
(1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The
Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757-768.
Received January 30, 1995
Revision received May 24,1995
Accepted May 26,1995 •
New Editors Appointed, 1997-2002
The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association announces
the appointment of four new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 1997.
As of January 1,1996, manuscripts should be directed as follows:
•
For the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, submit manuscripts to Philip
C. Kendall, PhD, Department of Psychology, Weiss Hall, Temple University,
Philadelphia, PA 19122.
•
For the Journal of Educational Psychology, submit manuscripts to Michael Pressley,
PhD, Department of Educational Psychology and Statistics, State University of New
York, Albany, NY 12222.
•
For the Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes section of the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, submit manuscripts to Chester A. Insko, PhD,
Incoming Editor JPSP—IRGP, Department of Psychology, CB #3270, Davie Hall,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270.
As of March 1, 1996, manuscripts should be directed as follows:
•
For Psychological Bulletin, submit manuscripts to Nancy Eisenberg, PhD, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.
Manuscript submission patterns make the precise date of completion of 1996 volumes uncertain.
Current editors Larry E. Beutler, PhD; Joel R. Levin, PhD; and Norman Miller, PhD, respectively,
will receive and consider manuscripts until December 31, 1995. Current editor Robert J. Sternberg,
PhD, will receive and consider manuscripts until February 28, 1996. Should 1996 volumes be completed before the dates noted, manuscripts will be redirected to the new editors for consideration in
1997 volumes.