Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing.

Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.42.2.137

Cited by 195 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Future studies are needed to identify the traits that determine effort on low-stakes tests. More than 1,000 psychologists and educational specialists with expertise in intelligence testing rated the importance of six "personal characteristics" to performance on intelligence tests (46). (47) found that individuals higher in achievement motivation tend to think longer and are less sensitive to financial incentives when answering questions on an untimed intelligence test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of test motivation in intelligence testing

Duckworth

Quinn

Lynam

et al. 2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

286

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intelligence tests are widely assumed to measure maximal intellectual performance, and predictive associations between intelligence quotient (IQ) scores and later-life outcomes are typically interpreted as unbiased estimates of the effect of intellectual ability on academic, professional, and social life outcomes. The current investigation critically examines these assumptions and finds evidence against both. First, we examined whether motivation is less than maximal on intelligence tests administered in the context of low-stakes research situations. Specifically, we completed a metaanalysis of random-assignment experiments testing the effects of material incentives on intelligence-test performance on a collective 2,008 participants. Incentives increased IQ scores by an average of 0.64 SD, with larger effects for individuals with lower baseline IQ scores. Second, we tested whether individual differences in motivation during IQ testing can spuriously inflate the predictive validity of intelligence for life outcomes. Trained observers rated test motivation among 251 adolescent boys completing intelligence tests using a 15-min "thin-slice" video sample. IQ score predicted life outcomes, including academic performance in adolescence and criminal convictions, employment, and years of education in early adulthood. After adjusting for the influence of test motivation, however, the predictive validity of intelligence for life outcomes was significantly diminished, particularly for nonacademic outcomes. Collectively, our findings suggest that, under low-stakes research conditions, some individuals try harder than others, and, in this context, test motivation can act as a third-variable confound that inflates estimates of the predictive validity of intelligence for life outcomes.O ne of the most robust social science findings of the 20th century is that intelligence quotient (IQ) scores predict a broad range of life outcomes, including academic performance, years of education, physical health and longevity, and job performance (1-7). The predictive power of IQ for such diverse outcomes suggests intelligence as a parsimonious explanation for individual and group differences in overall competence.However, what is intelligence? Boring's now famous reply to this question was that "intelligence as a measurable capacity must at the start be defined as the capacity to do well in an intelligence test. Intelligence is what the tests test." (ref. 8, p. 35). This early comment augured the now widespread conflation of the terms "IQ" and "intelligence," an unfortunate confusion we aim to illuminate in the current investigation.Intelligence has more recently-and more usefully-been defined as the "ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought" (ref. 5, p. 77). IQ scores, in contrast, measure the performance of individuals on tests designed to assess intelligence. That is, IQ is an observed, manifest ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of test motivation in intelligence testing

Duckworth

Quinn

Lynam

et al. 2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

286

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…), more of the highly convincing items are G rather than E" (p. 319). The survey of over 1,000 experts in behavioral genetics and psychometrics by Snyderman and Rothman (1987) also found that a plurality believed the Black-White IQ difference "to be a product of both genetic and environmental variation" (p. 141). However, there are also notable statements to the contrary.…”

Section: Section 14: Progressive Research Leads To Provisional Truthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…His conclusions, the theoretical issues they raised, and the public policy recommendations that many saw as stemming directly from them were dubbed "Jensenism," a term which entered the dictionary. Since 1969, Jensen has continued to publish prolifically on all of these issues, and increasing numbers of psychometricians and behavioral geneticists have come to agree with one or more of the tenets of Jensenism (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987.…”

Section: Section 1: Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…/1076 235 dictionary. Since 1969, Jensen has continued to publish prolifically on all of these issues, and increasing numbers of psychometricians and behavioral geneticists have come to agree with one or more of the tenets of Jensenism (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987. The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) presented general readers an update of the evidence for the hereditarian position along with several policy recommendations and an original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability.

Rushton¹,

Jensen²

2005

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

375

405

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The culture-only (0% genetic-100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic-50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black-White differences in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence: the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables. The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black-White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the discrimination model (i.e., Black-White differences in socially valued outcomes will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model (i.e., Black-White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics). Section 1: BackgroundThroughout the history of psychology, no question has been so persistent or so resistant to resolution as that of the relative roles of nature and nurture in causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability (Degler, 1991;Loehlin, Lindzey, & Spuhler, 1975). The scientific debate goes back to the mid-19th century (e.g., Galton, 1869;Nott & Glidden, 1854). Starting with the widespread use of standardized mental tests in World War I, average ethnic and racial group differences were found. Especially vexing has been the cause(s) of the 15-point Black-White IQ difference in the United States.In 1969, the Harvard Educational Review published Arthur Jensen's lengthy article, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and School Achievement?" Jensen concluded that (a) IQ tests measure socially relevant general ability; (b) individual differences in IQ have a high heritability, at least for the White populations of the United States and Europe; (c) compensatory educational programs have proved generally ineffective in raising the IQs or school achievement of individuals or groups; (d) because social mobility is linked to ability, social class differences in IQ probably have an appreciable genetic component; and tentatively, but most controversially, (e) the mean Black-White group difference in IQ probably has some genetic component. Jensen's (1969) article was covered in Time, Newsweek, Life, U.S. News & World Report, and New York Times Magazine. His conclusions, the theoretical issues they raised, and the public policy recommendations that many saw as stemming directly from them were dubbed "Jensenism," a term which entered the J. Philippe Rushton, Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Arthur R. Jensen, School of Education, University of California, Berkeley.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to J. Philippe Rushton, Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada. E-mail: rushton@uwo.ca Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294 Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 1076-8971/0...

show abstract

“…Although the idea that genetics influences behavior went through a period of controversy, particularly with respect to race and intelligence, it is currently enjoying a new, high level of acceptance (Plomin & Rende, 1991). For example, most social scientists now believe that intelligence test scores are significantly affected by genetics (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%