Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a Research Program on g in I–O Psychology

Abstract

Intelligence (i.e., g, general mental ability) is an individual difference that is arguably more important than ever for success in the constantly changing, ever more complex world of business (Boal, 2004; Gatewood, Field, & Barrick, 2011). Although the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology initially made substantial contributions to the study of intelligence and its use in applied settings (e.g., Hunter, 1980; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981), we have done relatively little in recent times about studying the nature of the intelligence construct and its measurement. Instead, we have focused predominately on using intelligence to predict performance outcomes and examine racial subgroup differences on intelligence test scores. Although the field of I–O psychology continues to approach intelligence at a surface level, other fields (e.g., clinical psychology, developmental and educational research, and neuropsychology) have continued to study this construct with greater depth and have consequently made more substantial progress in understanding this critical and complex construct. The purpose of this article is to note this lack of progress in I–O psychology and to challenge our field to mount new research initiatives on this critical construct.

Manifestations of intelligence: Expanding the measurement space to reconsider specific cognitive abilities

“…Our main point, and one that has been noted elsewhere (e.g., Lievens & Reeve, 2012;Reeve & Charles, 2008;Scherbaum et al, 2012), is that the treatment of "intelligence" in HR and I-O psychology lags far behind the science of mental abilities. Thus, it is not a surprise that many of the measures that have been developed to capture the manifestations of the complex skills and competencies required for success in today's workplace are not based on the science and theory of mental abilities.…”

“…A second challenge is that the field has lost contact with differential psychology and measurement theory (e.g., Schmidt, 2002;Schmidt & Hunter, 1998;Scherbaum et al, 2012). Overall, graduate training across North America systematically decreased the amount of training in differential psychology, measurement and psychometrics (Aiken et al, 1990).…”

“…Despite the scientific success of the science of mental abilities, and its application to behavior at work by HR and I-O psychology, some have bemoaned the fact that HR and I-O psychology has lost contact with differential psychology and measurement theory (e.g., Schmidt, 2002;Schmidt & Hunter, 1998;Scherbaum, Goldstein, Yusko, Ryan, & Hanges, 2012). Although there are likely many reasons for this shift in focus, we believe that a primary reason is that the research demonstrating the usefulness of 'g' in predicting many aspects of behavior, particularly in the realm of work, has been exceptionally successful (Murphy, 1996).…”

“…First, we seek to provide a (necessarily brief) refresher on the nature and structure of intelligence with a focus on the more specific cognitive abilities included in modern theories of intelligence (e.g., Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence) that we believe hold considerable promise for understanding and predicting behavior at work. As many have argued (Aiken, West, Sechrest, & Reno, 1990;Scherbaum et al, 2012;Schmidt, 2002), an understanding of basic intelligence theory is necessary if one hopes to develop theoretically adequate and psychometrically sound measures of cognitive capacities and that this understanding is not as widespread as it needs to be. In this process, we hope to dispel the "intelligence is not much more than g" myth that appears to have arisen in HR and I-O psychology since the publication of Ree and Earles (1991) ill-titled paper.…”

Precursors to the development of flexible expertise: Metacognitive self-evaluations as antecedences and consequences in adult learning

“…In relation to the first, Scherbaum, Goldstein, Yusko, Ryan, and Hanges (2012) argue that traditional conceptualizations of intelligence remain overvalued and that new conceptualizations are under-researched in the organizational psychology and training literature (though see, Ackerman, 1996, for an earlier comment on this). Sitzmann and Ely's (2011) more recent meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training confirmed that taken together, self-regulatory variables provide significant incremental prediction and largely debunk the ubiquitous status of cognitive abilities as the predictor of learning outcomes (17% of the variance in learning was accounted for by goals, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy, after controlling for cognitive ability).…”