INTELLIGENCE AND FERTILITY<sup>1</sup>

Dawson, Shepherd

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1932.tb00647.x

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The corresponding means are 3 for families and 3.67 for children. The latter is the contraharmonic mean discussed by Jaspen (44,45) and bears a direct arithmetic relation to the former. If X represents number of children in each family and N represents number of families, the mean per family is ~2X/N and the mean per child is ~SiX 2 /1/X.…”

Section: Methodological Problemsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Intelligence and family size.

Anastasi¹

1956

Psychological Bulletin

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodological Problemsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Intelligence and family size.

Anastasi¹

1956

Psychological Bulletin

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several large-scale American and British investigations conducted during the first five decades of the twentieth century revealed a rising intellectual level of the general population as measured by intelligence tests (see Anastasi, 1958a, pp. 2®9-211). These findings contradicted the intellectual decline predicted by several psychologists, geneticists, and demographers (e.g., Brad-ford, 1925 ; Burt, 1946;Cattell, 1937;Dawson, 1932). The anticipated decline was based on the widely reported negative correlation between intelligence and family size.…”

Section: Population Changes Is Test Performancementioning

confidence: 63%

Some Emerging Trends in Psychlolgical Measurement: A Fifty-Year Perspective

Anastasi

1985

Applied Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developments in psychological measurement over a 50-year period reveal a growing awareness of the modifiability of human behavior, as exemplified in cross-cultural comparisons, as well as in intergenerational changes within a single culture. Implications for testing are examined with special reference to the need for considering the context in which test takers developed and the contexts in which they are expected to function. Norms are viewed as the test performance of a population at a particular time and place. This orientation affects the interpretation of test scores. At a more basic level, cohort studies reveal systematic population changes. Cognitive scores may rise or decline, depending on concomitant societal changes. Progressive changes in attitudes, self-concepts, and other affective traits may in turn influence cognitive development. Affective variables may thus serve as

show abstract

“…Testing relatively large unselected groups of school children Bradford, 11 Chapman and Wiggins, 11 Lentz, 9 Cattell, 7 Fraser Roberts, Norman, and Griffiths, 7 Moshinsky, 10 and Burt, 28 have obtained correlations from -.19 to -.33 between intelligence and number of children in the family. In certain instances where special groups were tested, as the gifted by Terman 18 and those from a slum clearance area by Dawson,4 the obtained correlations were within this range. However lower negative correlations were generally obtained with the highly selected groups, such as the coal miners' children (Sutherland 12 ), special groups of private, preparatory, and secondary fee-paying children (Fraser Roberts et al, 1 Moshinsky 10 ), and college students (Himmelweit 8 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 65%