The 2026 study makes the openness–cognitive ability link more specific, not more decisive. In nationally representative adult samples from 12 countries, intellectual curiosity and aesthetic sensitivity were positively associated with literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving; creative imagination was not significantly associated. The openness facets also varied across countries. So a broad openness label is a poor shortcut for inferring someone's ability: first ask which tendency and which skill are meant. These are modest group-level associations, not causes or predictions about an individual.
What did the 2026 study actually measure?
The study compared Big Five traits with adults’ results in literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving. It used Cycle 2 of the OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), covering 67,927 people aged 16 to 65 in 12 countries. PIAAC is an adult skills survey; its tasks are useful indicators related to cognitive ability, but they are not a complete account of intelligence or a personal diagnosis.
The personality measure was the 30-item short form of the Big Five Inventory 2. A facet is a narrower tendency within a broad trait. The instrument represented each of the five domains with three facets, and each facet with two items. For openness, the facets were aesthetic sensitivity, intellectual curiosity, and creative imagination. The limited number of items makes the distinctions useful for a population analysis, while leaving less detail than a longer measure could provide. The paper also reports average reliability of α=.68 for the Big Five domain scales. That is a material caution: measurement noise can weaken or blur estimated associations, and two items give each facet a narrow basis. The facet results are informative signals, but their fine-grained ordering and differences deserve less confidence than a more reliable, fuller measure would warrant.
Researchers ran separate models for the broad domains and the 15 facets, then repeated analyses by country. Their pooled estimates gave each country equal weight, so a large sample did not dominate the combined result. The reported coefficients describe associations among variables in the model; the authors explicitly say the regression direction does not imply cause. The result is evidence about which tendencies and assessed skills varied together in these samples, not proof that curiosity produces skill or skill produces curiosity.
Sources: Unpacking the personality–cognitive ability link: a cross-national facet-level analysis of the Big Five; PIAAC 2nd Cycle Database
Which openness tendencies carried the association?
In the pooled results, intellectual curiosity and aesthetic sensitivity were positively associated with all three assessed skills. Creative imagination showed no significant association. The broad openness association therefore did not describe every openness tendency equally. A person might enjoy exploring unfamiliar ideas, notice qualities in music or visual design, or readily imagine alternative scenes. Those examples point to different facets; one does not establish the others.
The estimates were modest. For literacy, the study reports standardized regression coefficients of 0.12 for aesthetic sensitivity and 0.09 for intellectual curiosity; the corresponding estimates were similar for numeracy and adaptive problem-solving. These figures express relationships on standardized scales after the other facets were included in the model. They do not mean that a person with one tendency will score a fixed amount higher, nor that the facet accounts for that amount of skill by itself.
Because the facets entered the model together, each coefficient describes the association left after accounting for the other measured facets. That is useful when asking whether curiosity contributes information distinct from aesthetic sensitivity in this analysis. It also means the coefficient is not the same thing as a simple correlation between one facet and one skill. Neither comparison removes unmeasured influences such as prior learning opportunities or language experience.
The facets model accounted for more variance than the broad-domain model overall, about 10% versus 5–6% across the three skills. That is a model-level comparison involving all Big Five facets, not a claim that openness alone explains 10% or that a profile can predict an individual’s results. The practical point is narrower: combining distinct tendencies into one openness label can hide patterns that matter when asking what is associated with a particular outcome.
How does this compare with earlier evidence?
The new study refines the established association rather than overturning it. A 2022 meta-analysis summarized 272 study effect sets and 162,636 participants across Big Five and HEXACO instruments, with measures of general, fluid, and crystallized intelligence. Its accessible university abstract reports that openness was the strongest Big Five correlate overall. At the facet level, intellectual engagement and unconventionality were more strongly related to intelligence than other openness facets; separately, aesthetic-related facets were more strongly related to crystallized than fluid intelligence. These are two distinct findings, not evidence that aesthetic interest was among the strongest facets overall.
Those earlier facets should not be treated as interchangeable with the 2026 study’s BFI-2-S facets. The meta-analysis aggregates results from different instruments and facet definitions, whereas the newer study uses the BFI-2-S labels intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, and creative imagination. The labels may overlap conceptually, but the available abstract does not establish a one-to-one mapping. The 2026 study also assesses PIAAC literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving, rather than the meta-analysis’s intelligence measures. The comparison is therefore about how facet-level patterns add detail, not a direct replication or a test of the same constructs against the same outcomes. This distinction matters when translating a research label into everyday language: a reader should not assume that curiosity in one questionnaire captures every form of intellectual engagement, or that aesthetic sensitivity stands for unconventionality.
Taken together, the sources support a careful generalization: openness tends to show a modest positive relationship with cognitive measures, while finer-grained results depend on the instrument, facet, and ability measure. The newer study adds representative adult skill and country comparisons. It does not show that earlier findings were mistaken or establish one universal openness profile.
Sources: Unpacking the personality–cognitive ability link: a cross-national facet-level analysis of the Big Five; Personality and Intelligence: A Meta-Analysis
What should change in everyday interpretation?
When an openness description is used to explain learning or problem-solving, make three questions explicit: Which tendency is being described? Which skill or task is under discussion? Is the claim about an average association across people, or about one person in one situation? This simple distinction prevents a population result from turning into a personal verdict.
For example, if someone says they are open because they like speculative fiction, that observation may fit imaginative activity. It does not by itself establish how much they enjoy examining a difficult argument, notice aesthetic details, or perform a numeracy task. To understand the pattern, look for repeated, observable behavior: what kinds of ideas they choose to explore, what they attend to in art or design, and what they do when a task requires a new approach. Consider opportunity, familiarity, education, and time as well as personality; a tendency is only one possible part of the explanation.
The country variation matters too. The study found comparatively large cross-country variation for aesthetic sensitivity and intellectual curiosity, especially because results in Sweden differed from those elsewhere. Since the public-use personality data did not include item-level responses, the authors could not independently test measurement invariance in their analytic sample. They also warn against comparing national average openness from country-standardized scores. The evidence supports variation in association patterns, but does not explain its cultural causes.
The verdict is to treat openness as a profile of tendencies, not an ability label. If you are reflecting on your own pattern, note which facet description fits and what behavior you have actually seen across settings. The Context Profile can help you look at how everyday tendencies combine; it is a reflection tool, not a cognitive ability measure or a career selector. A useful conversation might begin: ‘When we say I’m open to ideas, which kinds of ideas do we mean, and what have you seen me do with them?’
Sources: Unpacking the personality–cognitive ability link: a cross-national facet-level analysis of the Big Five; PIAAC 2nd Cycle Database
Questions readers ask
Does openness mean someone has higher cognitive ability?
No. The study found modest average associations between some openness facets and adult skills. It cannot establish an individual’s ability from a personality description.
Which openness facets were associated with adult skills in the 2026 study?
Intellectual curiosity and aesthetic sensitivity were positively associated with literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving. Creative imagination was not significantly associated in the pooled results.
Did the openness findings hold equally across countries?
No. Associations for openness facets varied across the 12 countries. The study reports relatively high variation for aesthetic sensitivity and intellectual curiosity, but does not establish why those differences occurred.
Were the 2026 results based on IQ tests?
No. The researchers analyzed PIAAC literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving assessments as related indicators of cognitive ability. These skills are not a comprehensive IQ assessment.
Sources and notes
- Unpacking the personality–cognitive ability link: a cross-national facet-level analysis of the Big Five
Supports the sample, measures, pooled openness facet associations, country variation, and the limits around causal and national mean interpretation.
- Personality and Intelligence: A Meta-Analysis
The accessible university abstract supports the earlier meta-analysis scope and its broad and facet-level openness findings.
- PIAAC 2nd Cycle Database
Official OECD Cycle 2 source for PIAAC data and documentation underlying the adult skill assessment context.
Apply it to your own pattern
Compare your tendencies with the work the role asks of you
From this guide: A study-level association cannot tell you how your own curiosity, aesthetic attention, or imagination shows up in a particular work setting.
If you are considering a role, separate what interests you from the tasks it requires: reading complex material, working with numbers, generating alternatives, or noticing design details. The private Context Profile can help you reflect on how your wider everyday tendencies combine. Use that pattern to form questions about role conditions and work examples, not to predict which career will suit you.