VEN though environmental influences are greatly stressed in the study of I3 personality differences, mental factors undoubtedly play a part. Hollingworth (I) showed that psychoneurotics had lower mental age ratings than the normal population. Tendler (2) found a difference of -2.3 years between the median mental ages of a group of neurotics and a group of normal persons. Hollingworth and Rust (3) showed that highly intelligent adolescents had more self-sufficiency and were less neurotic and less submissive than average adolescents. Terman and Miles (4) found significant correlations between intelligence and emotionality. Babcock ( 5 ) showed a relationship between intelligence and self-confidence, the median group in intelligence having the most confidence of the three, while keeping a middle position for the other traits. This group also had the highest "concentration" scores.An explanation of the results of these studies is that it is not general intelligence which affects personality but the eficiency phare of intelligence-the adequacy with which one can use the abilities he has. This would explain the overlapping in the Tendler group, since many of high intelligence were neurotic and many of low intelligence were not, which shows that it cannot be intelligence in gmerai which is effective in neuroticism. It could account for Hollingworth's and Rust's superior adolescents who, on the whole, must have had normal or better mental efficiency to have been chosen for that particular superior group; and it
Psychologists have long been cognizant of the inadequacies of quotients, be they IQ's, El's, or MQ's, as reliable indicators of the individual's capacity for different fields of work. It has been only too obvious that many who scored low on tests did exceptionally well in the special work for which the tests purported to measure ability, while others who made high scores were most inadequate to the demands of work in those fields for which the tests indicated them to be best suited.With the necessity of giving practical advice, however, psychologists have become increasingly aware of the need to ascertain the causes of success or failure in practical work when such success or failure is inconsistent with test scores. They have found it necessary to study analytically how individuals of the same general level of intelligence differ, and have come to regard these specific aspects of ability or disability as important prognostic factors in success or failure. Furthermore, empirical work has demonstrated that special phases of ability are revealed by consideration of the separate parts of the tests and their interconnections, as well as by the changes in such interrelations coincident with changes in chronological and mental levels. Likewise, the establishment of norms or central tendencies for the separate parts of tests has been found greatly to enhance their value as diagnostic instruments.Thus it came about that, from the need of a refined, diagnostic scale of mechanical ability for use in vocational and educational advice, this study of the MacQuarrie Test was begun in 1933. 2 From practical work with the MacQuarrie Test, the authors had derived the impression that total scores seemed to correspond to levels of intelligence, although MacQuarrie himself had found the relation to group tests of mental ability to be negligible (less than +.20
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.