g2.0: Factor Analysis, Filed Findings, Facts, Fashionable Topics, and Future Steps

Abstract

Although we agree with Scherbaum, Goldstein, Yusco, Ryan, and Hanges (2012) that intelligence is a construct worthy of attention, and we do not want to discourage the pursuit of new and promising lines of research, we do not agree that individuals in our field and closely aligned fields have ignored recent intelligence research. We also believe that many opportunities exist to capitalize on this research-to extend it and to apply it to advance our field. Specifically, five concerns, each discussed below, come to mind regarding the focal article.

I–O Psychology and Intelligence: A Starting Point Established

“…For example, Cucina et al (2012) argue that support for the existing theories is vast and attempts to create new models of intelligence will not be fruitful. We found the differences in beliefs about the state of research between the I-O psychologists and the intelligence researchers striking.…”

“…We found the differences in beliefs about the state of research between the I-O psychologists and the intelligence researchers striking. For example, Cucina et al (2012) argue that support for the existing theories is vast and attempts to create new models of intelligence will not be fruitful. This contrasts to the intelligence researchers' commentaries (e.g., Ackerman & Beier, 2012;Brouwers & Van de Vijer, 2012), as well as the I-O psychologists who are focused on intelligence research (e.g., Lang & Bliese, 2012;Lievens & Reeve, 2012), who take the position that new approaches and measurement will be fruitful and should be pursued.…”

“…With perhaps one exception (i.e., Cucina, Gast, & Su, 2012), the commentaries appear to agree that intelligence deserves to be a ''hotter'' and more prominent topic of inquiry within our field than it is currently. The first goal was to spark a discussion among I-O psychologists regarding the need to reestablish a comprehensive program of research on intelligence.…”