<p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000761#s0030" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bartels, 2012 </a>found a correlation of 0.21 in what I understand to be within-person correlations (when one trait increased throughout life, the other did as well), however the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480832/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">between-person</a> correlations don't seem significant.</p>
<p>I would expect that if the factors truly influenced each other positively, they would also be correlated between people. Is Bartels' finding statistically confounded? (e.g. via a change in response style) Or is there a way to reconcile these two findings?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-19T22:27:00.860Z
Maybe I'm missing something, but why do you think Bartels is measuring within-person correlations?
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-20T13:06:43.360Z
Table 3 shows phenotypic correlations which are always accompanied by "(within person)" in the text
Probably
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-20T14:34:19.050Z
Ah, I see; they're using that to mean that the IQ and agreeableness are measured in the same person, in contrast to measures between twins where they correlate agreeableness in one twin with IQ in the other twin, not the way you are interpreting it.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-20T15:17:10.850Z
@BryanKrause Oh, right, thanks! In that case, I'm just curious about the cause of this discrepancy
Probably
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-20T15:30:31.697Z
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis is probably relevant. I would say that the statistical description in both papers is too sparse to interpret clearly what they've done. Unfortunately not atypical.
Bryan Krause
<personality><intelligence><statistics>
Why did studies find a within-person correlation between IQ and agreeableness but not between-person?
Probably
# Why did studies find a within-person correlation between IQ and agreeableness but not between-person?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-05-19)

[Bartels, 2012](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000761#s0030) found a correlation of 0.21 in what I understand to be within-person correlations (when one trait increased throughout life, the other did as well), however the [between-person](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480832/) correlations don't seem significant.

I would expect that if the factors truly influenced each other positively, they would also be correlated between people. Is Bartels' finding statistically confounded? (e.g. via a change in response style) Or is there a way to reconcile these two findings?

**Tags:** personality, intelligence, statistics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Maybe I'm missing something, but why do you think Bartels is measuring within-person correlations?  
> **username_0**: Table 3 shows phenotypic correlations which are always accompanied by "(within person)" in the text  
> **username_1**: Ah, I see; they're using that to mean that the IQ and agreeableness are measured in the same person, in contrast to measures between twins where they correlate agreeableness in one twin with IQ in the other twin, not the way you are interpreting it.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause Oh, right, thanks! In that case, I'm just curious about the cause of this discrepancy  
> **username_1**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis is probably relevant. I would say that the statistical description in both papers is too sparse to interpret clearly what they've done. Unfortunately not atypical.  

---

## 0 answers

