Emotional Intelligence, also called EI and often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient or EQ, describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. However, being a relatively new area, the definition of emotional intelligence is still in a state of flux. Some, such as John D. Mayer (2005a) prefer to distinguish emotional knowledge from emotional intelligence, as discussed below.
In 1920, E. L. Thorndike, at Columbia University, (Thorndike 1920), used the term "social intelligence" to describe the skill of getting along with other people. In 1975, Howard Gardner's The Shattered Mind, (Gardner 1975) began the formulation of the idea for "Multiple Intelligences" (he identifies eight intelligences, later two more are added), including both interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. Many psychologists, such as Gardner, believe that traditional measures of intelligence, such as the IQ test, fail to fully explain cognitive ability. (Smith 2002)
The term "emotional intelligence" appears to have originated with Wayne Payne (1985), but was popularized by Daniel Goleman (1995). Research on the concept originated with Peter Salovey and John "Jack" Mayer starting in the late 1980s. In 1990, their seminal paper (1990) defined the concept as an intelligence. Mayer and Salovey continue to research the concept. The term "emotional quotient" seems to have originated in an article by Keith Beasley (1987). There are numerous other assessments of emotional intelligence each advocating different models and measures.
Contents [hide]
1 Defining emotional intelligence
2 Emotional intelligence
3 Measures of Emotional Intelligence
3.1 Self-report measures of EI
3.2 Ability-based measures of EI
3.3 Nancy Gibbs on emotional intelligence
4 Criticisms
4.1 Self-report EI merely another measure of Personality?
4.2 Self-report EI - Susceptibility to Faking Good
5 References
6 See also
7 External links
[edit]
Defining emotional intelligence
The distinction between intelligence and knowledge in the area of cognition (i.e. IQ) is very clear, where generally, psychological research demonstrates that IQ is a reliable measure of cognitive capacity, and is stable over time. In the area of emotion (i.e. EQ) that distinction between intelligence and knowledge is murky. Current definitions of EQ are inconsistent about what it measures: some (such as Bradberry and Greaves 2005) say that EQ is dynamic, it can be learned or increased; whereas others (such as Mayer) say that EQ is stable, and cannot be increased.
[edit]
Emotional intelligence
Mayer and Salovey and emotional intelligence
They suggested that the capacity to perceive and understand emotions define a new variable in personality. The Mayer-Salovey model defines emotional intelligence as the capacity to understand emotional information and to reason with emotions. More specifically, they divide emotional intelligence abilities into four areas -- in their four branch model:
The capacity to accurately perceive emotions.
The capacity to use emotions to facilitate thinking.
The capacity to understand emotional meanings.
The capacity to manage emotions.
Goleman's five emotional competencies
Extending Gardner's multiple intelligence, Salovey proposed five categories when defining emotional intelligence. And Goleman(1995) adopted Salovey's definition which divides emotional intelligence into the following five emotional competencies:
The ability to identify and name one's emotional states and to understand the link between emotions, thought and action.
The capacity to manage one's emotional states — to control emotions or to shift undesirable emotional states to more adequate ones.
The ability to enter into emotional states (at will) associated with a drive to achieve and be successful.
The capacity to read, be sensitive to, and influence other people's emotions.
The ability to enter and sustain satisfactory interpersonal relationships. (Goleman, 1995)
[edit]
Measures of Emotional Intelligence
Some researchers believe EI is a cognitive ability just as is IQ (eg, Mayer & Salovey, 2000), while others believe it is a combination of perceived abilities and traits (e.g., Schutte et al. 1998). These opposing views have inspired two separate domains of inventories – ability-based measures, which focus on maximal performance, and mixed-model measures, which focus on typical performance (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Petrides & Furnham, 2000). Maximal performance is an indication of the best cognitive performance a test-taker can achieve on a test, while typical performance indicates a test-taker’s performance under ordinary test conditions (Dennis, Sternberg, & Beatty, 2000).
[edit]
Self-report measures of EI
The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal by Bradberry and Greaves (2005c), is administered as a self- or 360-degree assessment of the emotional intelligence skills popularized by Goleman. The online version of The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal is included in their book The Emotional Intelligence Quickbook. The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal measures:
Personal competence, including:
Self-Awareness: Recognizing and understanding your emotions in the moment, as well as your tendencies across time and situation.
Self-Management: Using awareness of emotions to manage response to different situations and people.
Social competence, including:
Social Awareness: Understanding the perspectives of other people including their motivations, their emotions, and the meaning of what they do and say.
Relationship Management: Using awareness of one's own emotions and the emotions of others to manage relationships to a successful outcome.
Other assessments include Reven BarOn's EQi, the EQ Map, the SEI, the Emotional Competence Inventory, the Ei360, and a test by Tett, Fox, and Wang (2005).
[edit]
Ability-based measures of EI
The MSCEIT measure is a measure of EI involving a series of emotion-based problem solving items with relatively low face-validity, of which the answers have been deemed correct by consensus (MacCann, Roberts, Matthews, & Zeidner, 2004; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). The MSCEIT (Mayer - Salovey - Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test) purports to measure emotional intelligence across the following domains:
Experiential Area
Perceiving Emotions Branch
Facilitating Thinking Branch
Strategic Area
Understanding Emotional Meaning Branch
Managing Emotions Branch
For more on this topic see psychological testing and evaluation. A discussion on the strengths of ability-based measures versus self-report measures was written by (Ciarroch and Mayer 2005).
[edit]
Nancy Gibbs on emotional intelligence
In October of 1995, Nancy Gibbs (1995) wrote an article on emotional intelligence that appeared in Time Magazine, wherein she mentioned Goleman's book, adding to the book's popularity, but misrepresented Mayer and Salovey's view. In the misquotation, "Their [Mayer and Salovey's] notion is about to bound into the national conversation, handily shortened to EQ, thanks to a new book, Emotional Intelligence (Bantam) by Daniel Goleman...", Nancy Gibbs made it look like Goleman's book accurately reflected Mayer and Salovey's concept of emotional intelligence without even mentioning the main differences.
John D. Mayer criticized Gibb's article on his Web site (Mayer 2005c) at the University of New Hampshire. Among other things, he criticized the subtitle on the issue's cover ("It's not your IQ. Its not even a number. But emotional intelligence may be the best predictor of success in life, redefining what it means to be smart."), because the subtitle makes the reader think that emotional intelligence is not measurable and that emotional intelligence correlates with "success in life." Mayer and Salovey's view, to the contrary, states that EI is measurable, even with a psychometric test such as the MSCEIT, and makes no claim about EIs predictability for success in life.
[edit]
Criticisms
A significant criticism is that emotional intelligence has no "benchmark" to set itself against. While IQ tests are designed to correlate as closely as possible with school grades, emotional intelligence seems to have no similar objective quantity it can be based on.
The criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey include a study by Roberts et.al. (2001). That research warns that EQ may actually be measuring conformity. However, Mayer et.al. (2001), provide further theoretical basis for their theories. Nevertheless, many psychological researchers do not accept emotional intelligence to be a part of "standard" intelligence (like IQ).
Goleman's work is also criticized in the psychological community. Eysenck ((2000)), for example comments that Goleman "exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'. . . .If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand; there is no sound scientific basis."
[edit]
Self-report EI merely another measure of Personality?
Some researchers have raised concerns with the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions such as those within the Big Five (Gignac, 2005; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2005). Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure traits, and because they are both measured in the self-report form (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2002). Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI – neuroticism and extraversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2002). While many studies have looked at the relationship between neuroticism and self-report EI measures, few have examined that relationship with the TMMS (Trait Meta Mood Scale) and SEI (Schutte EI Scale) specifically (Gignac, Palmer, Manocha, & Stough, in press). A study by Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) reported a strong negative correlation between total TMMS scores and neuroticism scores (r = -.40). Another study by Warrick and Nettlebeck (2004) reported a moderate negative correlation between neuroticism and the TMMS total score (-.27), although there was a notable limitation in their sample size (n = 84). As for the SEI, an initial study by Schutte et al. (1998) reported a moderate negative correlation between neuroticism and total SEI scores (r = -.28), although the sample size was also notably small (n = 23). In a larger study (n = 354) by Saklofske (2003), the SEI optimism subscale was reported to have a strong negative relationship with neuroticism (r = -.52). Collectively, there does appear to be evidence of an overlap between neuroticism and self-report EI measures such as the TMMS and SEI. However, it is unclear in the literature exactly what level of correlation between personality and self-report EI is so high as to suggest that it self-report EI is redundant.
The interpretations of moderate-to-high correlations between self-report EI and personality have been varied and inconsistent. Some researchers have asserted that correlations in the .40 range constitute outright construct redundancy (eg, Davies, Stankov & Roberts, 1998), while others have suggested that self-report EI is a personality trait in itself (eg, Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Gignac (2005) asserted that it would be difficult for any self-report individual difference measure to demonstrate exceptional incremental validity above and beyond the Big Five, and recommended that factor analytic methodology be used to test for construct redundancy (as opposed to zero-order correlations). Before conclusive and convincing arguments can be asserted as to whether self-report EI is redundant or related to personality, it would be useful to statistically extricate the effects of neuroticism from the relationship between the TMMS and SEI, and determine whether the EI subscales still form a general factor (EI g) after the extrication. While the overlap between EI and personality is a large concern, there are other factors that bring the psychometric properties of self-report EI inventories into question.
[edit]
Self-report EI - Susceptibility to Faking Good
Self-report EI measures, much like personality measures, are comprised of highly face-valid items. This may make understanding what test items are ‘really asking’ routinely easy, and could expose the inventories to a phenomenon known as “faking good.” More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), “faking good” is defined as a response pattern where test-takers systematically represent themselves with an excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), and act as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Ganster et al., 1983).
It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering the contexts certain self-report EI inventories are used in (eg, employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001). Highlighting the extent to which response biases are considered a confound to accurate personality measurement, some researchers even believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). In summary, given the inherent similarities between personality testing and self-report EI testing (both are self-report, both measure traits, and both are said to converge moderately-to-highly), it may be reasonable to assert that socially desirable responding has the capacity to contaminate responses on self-report EI measures. Specifically, should self-report EI measures be largely contaminated by SDR, their construct validity may be compromised (Cronbach & Meehl, 1996).
[edit]
References
a b c Bradberry, T. and Greaves, J. (2005). "The Emotional Intelligence Quickbook.", New York: Simon and Schuster. www.eiquickbook.com
^ Ciarrochi, H. and Mayer, J. (2005). "Can Self-Report Measures Contribute to the Study of Emotional Intelligence? A Conversation between Joseph Ciarrochi and John D. Mayer" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/ei%20can%20self%20report%20contribute.htm accessed January 2, 2006.
^ Eysenck, H. (2000). Intelligence: A New Look, Transaction Publishers, (ISBN 0-7658-0707-6), pp. 109-110.
^ Gardner, H. (1975) The Shattered Mind. New York: Knopf.
^ Gibbs, Nancy (1995). "The EQ Factor," Time Magazine (October 2). Web reference at http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit5_article1.html accessed January 2, 2006. [1]
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.(ISBN 0-553-09503-X)
a b Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London : Bloomsbury. (ISBN 0-7475-2622-2)
MacCann, C., Roberts, R.D., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence tests. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 645-662.
a b Mayer, J. (2005a). "Can Emotional Knowledge be Improved? Can you raise emotional intelligence?” The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Improve/ei%20Rasing%20EI.htmaccessed January 2, 2006.
^ Mayer, J. (2005b) "Emotional Intelligence Information: A Site Dedicated to Communicating Scientific Information about Emotional Intelligence, Including Relevant Aspects of Emotions, Cognition, and Personality." The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/index.html accessed January 2, 2006.
^ Mayer, J. (2005c). "Is EI the Best Predictor of Success in Life?" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Controversies/eicontroversy1%20best%20predictor.htm accessed January 2, 2006.
^ Mayer, J. (2005c). "How Do You Measure Emotional Intelligence?" The University of New Hampshire. Web reference at [2] accessed January 2, 2006.
^ Mayer, J.D. & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442.
^ Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R., and Sitarenios, G. (2001) "Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence." Emotion, 1, 232-242.
^ Payne, W.L. (1985). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self-integration; relating to fear, pain and desire (theory, structure of reality, problem-solving, contraction/expansion, tuning in/comingout/letting go). A Doctoral Dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: The Union For Experimenting Colleges And Universities (now The Union Institute). Abstract available at http://eqi.org/payne.htm
^ Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M., and Matthews, G. (2001). "Does Emotional Intelligence Meet Traditional Standards for an Intelligence? Some New Data and Conclusions." Emotion, Vol 1, no 3, pages 196-231. Web pre-publication version available at http://eqi.org/ei_abs4.htm accessed 19 Sept 2006.
^ Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990). "Emotional intelligence." Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(1990), 185-211. [3]
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
^ Smith, M. K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences," the encyclopedia of informal education, Downloaded from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005.
Stein, S and Book, H. "The EQ Edge". Toronto: Jossey-Bass. EQ Edge.com
Stein, S (1998). EQ, not just IQ, may be key to high-tech career success. website
Stein, S (1999). Americans Have Higher Emotional Intelligence Than Canadians. website
Stein, S (1997). Emotional Intelligence (EQ) Gets Better with Age. [4]
Stein, S (1997). Men and Women Have Different Kinds and Levels of Emotional Intelligence, EQ for Both Sexes is Key to Workplace Success. website
Technical Brochures regarding the psychometric properties of the BOEI (Benchmark of Emotional Intelligence), EQ-i, and MSCEIT. website
^ Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation of a self-report measure of emotional intelligence as a multidimensional trait domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 859-888.
^ Thorndike, R.K. (1920). "Intelligence and Its Uses," Harper's Magazine 140, 227-335.
Warneka, T. (2006). Leading People the Black Belt Way: Conquering the Five Core Problems Facing Leaders Today. Asogomi Press. Cleveland, Ohio. website
[edit]
See also
Emotion work, List of emotions
Emotional competence, Intercultural competence
Empathy
Theory of multiple intelligences, Social IQ, Systems intelligence
Motivation
Emotion in animals
David Viscott
[edit]
External links
Emotional Intelligence and EQ
http://www.danielgoleman.info Website of Daniel Goleman, Ph.D., author of Emotional Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence Information from John Mayer's University of New Hampshire Web site
Peter Salovey, Yale Psychology Faculty
eq.org Directory of emotional intelligence sites
Emotional Intelligence, Emotions Steve Hein's site
Bullying and emotional intelligence
Time Magazine Report: The EQ Factor
Emotional Intelligence Consortium, consortium founded by Daniel Goleman
Multi-Health Systems, publishers of the EQ-i and the MSCEIT
TalentSmart, publishers of The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal
Edutopia: Overview on Emotional Intelligence
Introduction to Emotional Intelligence Education
Review of EI Literature March 2004
Prof.Steve Farron's Review
Courses on Emotional Intelligence from the American Management Association
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence"
Categories: Articles to be merged since September 2006 | Emotion | Intelligence | Personality | Popular psychology
An intelligence quotient or IQ is a score derived from a set of standardized tests of intelligence. Intelligence tests come in many forms, and some tests use a single type of item or question. Most tests yield both an overall score and individual subtest scores. Regardless of design, all IQ tests attempt to measure the same general intelligence. Component tests are generally designed and selected because they are found to be predictive of later intellectual development, such as educational achievement. IQ also correlates with job performance, socioeconomic advancement, and "social pathologies". Recent work has demonstrated links between IQ and health, longevity, and functional literacy.[citation needed] However, IQ tests do not measure all meanings of "intelligence", such as creativity. IQ scores are relative (like placement in a race), not absolute (like the measurement of a ruler).
For people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, IQ is highly heritable, and by adulthood the influence of family environment on IQ is undetectable. That is, significant variation in IQ between adults can be attributed to genetic variation, with the remaining variation attributable to environmental sources that are not shared within families. In the United States, marked variation in IQ occurs within families, with siblings differing on average by almost one standard deviation.
The average IQ scores for many populations were rising during the 20th century: a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. It is not known whether these changes in scores reflect real changes in intellectual abilities. On average, IQ scores are stable over a person's lifetime, but some individuals undergo large changes. For example, scores can be affected by the presence of learning disabilities.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 IQ and general intelligence factor
3 Genetics versus environment
3.1 Environment
3.2 Development
3.3 Mental retardation
3.4 IQ, education, and income
3.5 Regression
4 IQ and the brain
4.1 Brain size and IQ
4.2 Brain areas associated with IQ
4.3 Brain structure and IQ
5 The Flynn effect
6 Group differences
6.1 Sex and intelligence
6.2 Race and IQ
6.3 Health and IQ
6.4 Economic development and IQ
7 Practical validity
8 Public policy
8.1 Use of IQ in the United States legal system
9 Validity and g-loading of specific tests
10 Controversy
10.1 Social construct
10.2 The Mismeasure of Man
10.3 The view of the American Psychological Association
11 Notes
12 See also
13 References
14 External links
14.1 Collective statements
14.2 Review papers
14.3 Professional Intelligence Testing
[edit]
History
In 1905, the French psychologist Alfred Binet published the first modern intelligence test, the Binet-Simon intelligence scale. His principal goal was to identify students who needed special help in coping with the school curriculum. Along with his collaborator Theodore Simon, Binet published revisions of his intelligence scale in 1908 and 1911, the last appearing just before his untimely death. In 1912, the abbreviation of "intelligence quotient" or I.Q., a translation of the German Intelligenz-Quotient, was coined by the German psychologist William Stern.
A further refinement of the Binet-Simon scale was published in 1916 by Lewis M. Terman, from Stanford University, who incorporated Stern's proposal that an individual's intelligence level be measured as an intelligence quotient (I.Q.). Terman's test, which he named the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale formed the basis for one of the modern intelligence tests still commonly used today. They are all colloquially known as IQ tests.
[edit]
IQ and general intelligence factor
Main article: General intelligence factor
Modern IQ tests produce scores for different areas (e.g., language fluency, three-dimensional thinking, etc.), with the summary score calculated from subtest scores. Individual subtest scores tend to correlate with one another, even when seemingly disparate in content.
Analyses of individuals' scores on the subtests of a single IQ test or the scores from a variety of different IQ tests (e.g., Stanford-Binet, WISC-R, Raven's Progressive Matrices, Cattell Culture Fair III, Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test, and others) reveal that they all measure a single common factor and various factors that are specific to each test. This kind of factor analysis has led to the theory that underlying these disparate cognitive tasks is a single factor, termed the general intelligence factor (or g), that corresponds with the common-sense concept of intelligence. In the normal population, g and IQ are roughly 90% correlated and are often used interchangeably.
Various IQ tests measure a standard deviation with different number of points. Thus, when an IQ score is stated, the standard deviation used should also be stated. A result of 124 in a test with a 24-point standard deviation corresponds to a score of 115 in a test with a 15-point deviation. [1]
Where an individual has scores that do not correlate with each other, there is a good reason to look for a learning disability or other cause for the lack of correlation. Tests have been chosen for inclusion because they display the ability to use this method to predict later difficulties in learning.
[edit]
Genetics versus environment
Main article: Inheritance of intelligence
The role of genes and environment (nature vs. nurture) in determining IQ is reviewed in Plomin et al. (2001, 2003). The degree to which genetic variation contributes to observed variation in a trait is measured by a statistic called heritability. Heritability scores range from 0 to 1, and can be interpreted as the percentage of variation (e.g. in IQ) that is due to variation in genes. Twins studies and adoption studies are commonly used to determine the heritability of a trait. Until recently heritability was mostly studied in children. These studies find the heritability of IQ is approximately 0.5; that is, half of the variation in IQ among the children studied was due to variation in their genes. The remaining half was thus due to environmental variation and measurement error. A heritability of 0.5 implies that IQ is "substantially" heritable. Studies with adults show that they have a higher heritability of IQ than children do and that heritability could be as high as 0.8. The American Psychological Association's 1995 task force on "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" concluded that within the white population the heritability of IQ is "around .75" (p. 85). [2]
[edit]
Environment
Environmental factors play a major role in determining IQ in extreme situations. Proper childhood nutrition appears critical for cognitive development; malnutrition can lower IQ. Other research indicates environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to toxins, duration of breastfeeding, and micronutrient deficiency can affect IQ. In the developed world, there are some family effects on the IQ of children, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. However, by adulthood, this correlation disappears, so that the IQ of adults living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world may be more heritable.
Nearly all personality traits show that, contrary to expectations, environmental effects actually cause adoptive siblings raised in the same family to be as different as children raised in different families (Harris, 1998; Plomin & Daniels, 1987). Put another way, shared environmental variation for personality is zero, and all environmental effects would be nonshared. Conversely, IQ is actually an exception to this, at least among children. The IQs of adoptive siblings, who share no genetic relation but do share a common family environment, are correlated at .32. Despite attempts to isolate them, the factors that cause adoptive siblings to be similar have not been identified. However, as explained below, shared family effects on IQ disappear after adolescence.
Active genotype-environment correlation, also called the "nature of nurture", is observed for IQ. This phenomenon is measured similarly to heritability; but instead of measuring variation in IQ due to genes, variation in environment due to genes is determined. One study found that 40% of variation in measures of home environment are accounted for by genetic variation. This suggests that the way human beings craft their environment is due in part to genetic influences.
A study of French children adopted between the ages of 4 and 6 shows the continuing interplay of nature and nurture. The children came from poor backgrounds with I.Q.’s that initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Nine years later after adoption, they retook the I.Q. tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family’s status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average I.Q. scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average I.Q. scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98." [3] This study suggests that IQ is not stable over the course of ones lifetime and that, even in later childhood, a change in environment can have a significant effect on IQ.
[edit]
Development
It is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. Surprisingly, the opposite occurs. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 20%, around 40% in middle childhood, and as high as 80% in adulthood.[4]
Shared family effects also seem to disappear by adulthood. Adoption studies show that, after adolescence, adopted siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adopted siblings (~0.0).[5]
Most of the IQ studies described above were conducted in developed countries, such as the United States, Japan, and Western Europe. Also, a few studies have been conducted in Moscow, East Germany, and India, and those studies have produced similar results. Any such investigation is limited to describing the genetic and environmental variation found within the populations studied. This is a caveat of any heritability study.[citation needed]. Another caveat is that people with chromosomal abnormalities - such as klinefelter's syndrome and Triple X syndrome, will score considerably higher than the normal population without the chromosomal abnormalities, when scored against visual IQ tests, not IQ tests that have been tailored to measure IQ against the normal population.[6]
[edit]
Mental retardation
About 75–80 percent of mental retardation is familial (runs in families), and 20–25 percent is due to organic problems, such as chromosomal abnormalities or brain damage. [7] Mild to severe mental retardation is a symptom of several hundred single-gene disorders and many chromosomal abnormalities, including small deletions. Based on twin studies, moderate to severe mental retardation does not appear to be familial, but mild mental retardation does. That is, the relatives of the moderate to severely mentally retarded have normal ranges of IQs, whereas the families of the mildly mentally retarded have IQs skewing lower.
IQ score ranges (from DSM-IV):
mild mental retardation: IQ 50–55 to 70; children require mild support; formally called "Educable Mentally Retarded".
moderate retardation: IQ 35–40 to 50–55; children require moderate supervision and assistance; formally called "Trainable Mentally Retarded".
severe mental retardation: IQ 20–25 to 35–40; can be taught basic life skills and simple tasks with supervision.
profound mental retardation: IQ below 20–25; usually caused by a neurological condition; require constant care.
The rate of mental retardation is higher among males than females, according to a 1991 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study. [8] This is aggravated by the fact that males, unlike females, do not have a spare X chromosome to offset chromosomal defects.
Individuals with IQs below 70 have been essentially exempted from the death penalty in the U.S. since 2002. [9]
[edit]
IQ, education, and income
Tambs et al. (1989) found that occupational status, educational attainment, and IQ are individually heritable; and further found that "genetic variance influencing educational attainment … contributed approximately one-fourth of the genetic variance for occupational status and nearly half the genetic variance for IQ". In a sample of U.S. siblings, Rowe et al. (1997) report that the inequality in education and income was predominantly due to genes, with shared environmental factors playing a subordinate role.
[edit]
Regression
The heritability of IQ measures the extent to which the IQ of children appears to be influenced by the IQ of parents. Because the heritability of IQ is less than 100%, the IQ of children tends to "regress" towards the mean IQ of the population. That is, high IQ parents tend to have children who are less bright than their parents, whereas low IQ parents tend to have children who are brighter than their parents. The effect can be quantified by the equation where
is the predicted average IQ of the children
is the mean IQ of the population to which the parents belong
h2 is the heritability of IQ
m and f are the IQs of the mother and father, respectively. [10]
Thus, if the heritability of IQ is 50%, a couple averaging an IQ of 120 may have children that average around an IQ of 110, assuming that both parents come from a population with a median IQ of 100.
A caveat to this reasoning - are those children who have chromosomal abnormalities, such as klinefelter's syndrome and Triple X syndrome whose "normal" IQ is only one indicator; their visual IQ is another indicator.
[edit]
IQ and the brain
Main article: Neuroscience and intelligence
[edit]
Brain size and IQ
Modern studies using MRI imaging have shown that brain size correlates with IQ (r = 0.35) among adults (McDaniel, 2005). The correlation between brain size and IQ seems to hold for comparisons between and within families (Gignac et al. 2003; Jensen 1994; Jensen & Johnson 1994). However, one study found no familial correlation (Schoenemann et al. 2000). A study on twins (Thompson et al., 2001) showed that frontal gray matter volume was correlated with g and highly heritable. A related study has reported that the correlation between brain size (reported to have a heritability of 0.85) and g is 0.4, and that correlation is mediated entirely by genetic factors (Posthuma et al 2002).
[edit]
Brain areas associated with IQ
Many different sources of information have converged on the view that the frontal lobes are critical for fluid intelligence. Patients with damage to the frontal lobe are impaired on fluid intelligence tests (Duncan et al 1995). The volume of frontal grey (Thompson et al 2001) and white matter (Schoenemann et al 2005) have also been associated with general intelligence. In addition, recent neuroimaging studies have limited this association to the lateral prefrontal cortex. Duncan and colleagues (2000) showed using Positron Emission Tomography that problem-solving tasks that correlated more highly with IQ also activate the lateral prefrontal cortex. More recently, Gray and colleagues (2003) used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that those individuals that were more adept at resisting distraction on a demanding working memory task had both a higher IQ and increased prefrontal activity. For a review of this topic, see Gray and Thompson (2004). Studies, conducted on one particular individual with Klinefelter's Syndrome indicates that visual IQ tests (pattern, shape, colour, mathematical series), computation, can be greatly enhanced by using puzzles such as WASGIJ's. Increased Visual IQ from around 110 to 155 is not impossible when such tests are conducted on some individuals with Klinefelter's Syndrome. Both individuals with Klinefelter's Syndrome and Triple X syndrome have an enhanced Parietal lobe which facilitates visual spatial thinking.
In 2004, Richard Haier, professor of psychology in the Department of Pediatrics and colleagues at University of California at Irvine and the University of New Mexico used MRI to obtain structural images of the brain in 47 normal adults who also took standard IQ tests. The study demonstrated that general human intelligence appears to be based on the volume and location of gray matter tissue in the brain. Regional distribution of gray matter in humans is highly heritable. The study also demonstrated that, of the brain's gray matter, only about 6 percent appeared to be related to IQ. [11]
[edit]
Brain structure and IQ
A study involving 307 children (age between six to nineteen) measuring the size of brain structures using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and measuring verbal and non-verbal abilities has been conducted (Shaw et al 2006). The study has indicated that there is a relationship between IQ and the structure of the cortex - the characteristic change being the group with the superior IQ scores starts with thinner cortex in the early age then becomes thicker than average by the late teens. [12]
[edit]
The Flynn effect
Main article: Flynn effect
The Flynn effect is named after James R. Flynn, a New Zealand based political scientist. He discovered that IQ scores worldwide appear to be slowly rising at a rate of around three IQ points per decade (Flynn, 1999). Attempted explanations have included improved nutrition, a trend towards smaller families, better education, greater environmental complexity, and heterosis (Mingroni, 2004). However, tests are renormalized occasionally to obtain mean scores of 100, for example WISC-R (1974), WISC-III (1991) and WISC-IV (2003). Hence it is difficult to compare IQ scores measured years apart.
There is recent evidence that the tendency for intelligence scores to rise has ended in some first world countries. In 2004, Jon Martin Sundet of the University of Oslo and colleagues published an article documenting scores on intelligence tests given to Norwegian conscripts between the 1950s and 2002, showing that the increase in scores of general intelligence stopped after the mid-1990s and in numerical reasoning subtests, declined. [13]
Thomas W. Teasdale of the University of Copenhagen and David R. Owen of Brooklyn College, City University of New York, discovered similar results in Denmark, where intelligence test results showed no rise across the 1990s. [14]
Indications that scores on intelligence tests are not universally climbing have also come from the United Kingdom. Michael Shayer, a psychologist at King's College, University of London, and two colleagues report that performance on tests of physical reasoning given to children entering British secondary schools declined markedly between 1976 and 2003. [15]
[edit]
Group differences
Among the most controversial issues related to the study of intelligence is the observation that intelligence measures such as IQ scores vary between populations. While there is little scholarly debate about the existence of some of these differences, the reasons remain highly controversial both within academia and in the public sphere.
[edit]
Sex and intelligence
Main article: Sex and intelligence
Most studies show that the men and women have the same average IQ. However, their scores in some subtest differ, sometimes significantly. For example, women perform better on tests of memory and verbal proficiency, while men perform better on tests of mathematical and spatial ability. Although the sex differences in average IQ are insignificant, male performance displays higher variance. Thus, there are more men than women with both very high and very low IQs.
[edit]
Race and IQ
Main article: Race and intelligence
While IQ scores of individual members of different racial or ethnic groups are distributed across the IQ scale, groups vary in where their members cluster along the IQ scale. East Asians cluster higher than Europeans, while Hispanics and Sub-Saharan Africans cluster lower in the USA.[16] Much research has been devoted to the extent and potential causes of racial-ethnic group differences in IQ, and the underlying purposes and validity of the tests has been examined. Most experts conclude that examination of many types of test bias and simple differences in socioeconomic status have failed to explain the IQ clustering differences. [17] For a summary of expert opinions, see Race and Intelligence.
The findings in this field are often thought to conflict with fundamental social philosophies, and have resulted in controversy.[18]
[edit]
Health and IQ
Persons with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. This may be because they better avoid injury and take better care of their own health, or alternatively may be due to a slight increased propensity for material wealth (see above). Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, severe depression, and schizophrenia are less prevalent in higher IQ bands since these disorders greatly affect participants' concentration and may affect the test taking itself. On the other hand, higher IQ shows a higher prevalence of those suffering Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. [19]
Research in Scotland has shown that a 15-point lower IQ meant people had a fifth less chance of seeing their 76th birthday, while those with a 30-point disadvantage were 37% less likely than those with a higher IQ to live that long. [20]
[edit]
Economic development and IQ
A book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, claims to show that the wealth of a nation can in large part be explained by the average IQ score. This claim has been both disputed and supported in peer-reviewed papers. The data used have also been questioned.
[edit]
Practical validity
Linear correlations between 1000 pairs of numbers. The data are graphed on the lower left and their correlation coefficients listed on the upper right. Each set of points correlates maximally with itself, as shown on the diagonal (all correlations = +1).Evidence for the practical validity of IQ comes from examining the correlation between IQ scores and life outcomes.
Economic and social correlates of IQ Factors Correlation
School grades and IQ 0.5
Total years of education and IQ 0.55
IQ and parental socioeconomic status 0.33
Job performance and IQ 0.54
Negative social outcomes and IQ −0.2
IQs of identical twins 0.86
IQs of husband and wife 0.4
Heights of parent and child 0.47
Economic and social correlates of IQ in the USA IQ <75 75–90 90–110 110–125 >125
U.S. population distribution 5 20 50 20 5
Married by age 30 72 81 81 72 67
Out of labor force more than 1 month out of year (men) 22 19 15 14 10
Unemployed more than 1 month out of year (men) 12 10 7 7 2
Divorced in 5 years 21 22 23 15 9
% of children w/ IQ in bottom decile (mothers) 39 17 6 7 < 1
Had an illegitimate baby (mothers) 32 17 8 4 2
Lives in poverty 30 16 6 3 2
Ever incarcerated (men) 7 7 3 1 < 1
Chronic welfare recipient (mothers) 31 17 8 2 < 1
High school dropout 55 35 6 0.4 < 0.4
Values are the percentage of each IQ sub-population, among non-Hispanic whites only, fitting each descriptor. Compiled by Gottfredson (1997) from a U.S. study by Herrnstein & Murray (1994) pp. 171, 158, 163, 174, 230, 180, 132, 194, 247–248, 194, 146 respectively.
Research shows that general intelligence plays an important role in many valued life outcomes. In addition to academic success, IQ correlates with job performance (see below), socioeconomic advancement (e.g., level of education, occupation, and income), and "social pathology" (e.g., adult criminality, poverty, unemployment, dependence on welfare, children outside of marriage). Recent work has demonstrated links between general intelligence and health, longevity, and functional literacy. Correlations between g and life outcomes are pervasive, though IQ and happiness do not correlate. IQ and g correlate highly with school performance and job performance, less so with occupational prestige, moderately with income, and to a small degree with law-abidingness.
General intelligence (in the literature typically called "cognitive ability") is the best predictor of job performance by the standard measure, validity. Validity is the correlation between score (in this case cognitive ability, as measured, typically, by a paper-and-pencil test) and outcome (in this case job performance, as measured by a range of factors including supervisor ratings, promotions, training success, and tenure), and ranges between −1.0 (the score is perfectly wrong in predicting outcome) and 1.0 (the score perfectly predicts the outcome). See validity (psychometric). The validity of cognitive ability for job performance tends to increase with job complexity and varies across different studies, ranging from 0.2 for unskilled jobs to 0.8 for the most complex jobs.
A meta-analysis (Hunter and Hunter, 1984) which pooled validity results across many studies encompassing thousands of workers (32,124 for cognitive ability), reports that the validity of cognitive ability for entry-level jobs is 0.54, larger than any other measure including job tryout (0.44), experience (0.18), interview (0.14), age (−0.01), education (0.10), and biographical inventory (0.37).
Because higher test validity allows more accurate prediction of job performance, companies have a strong incentive to use cognitive ability tests to select and promote employees. IQ thus has high practical validity in economic terms. The utility of using one measure over another is proportional to the difference in their validities, all else equal. This is one economic reason why companies use job interviews (validity 0.14) rather than randomly selecting employees (validity 0.0).
However, legal barriers, most prominently the U.S. Civil Rights Act, as interpreted in the 1971 United States Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power Co., have prevented American employers from using cognitive ability tests as a controlling factor in selecting employees where (1) the use of the test would have a disparate impact on hiring by race and (2) where the test is not shown to be directly relevant to the job or class of jobs at issue. Instead, where there is not direct relevance to the job or class of jobs at issue, tests have only been legally permitted to be used in conjunction with a subjective appraisal process. The U.S. military uses the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), as higher scores correlate with significant increases in effectiveness of both individual soldiers and units, [21] and Microsoft is known for using non-illegal tests that correlate with IQ tests as part of the interview process, weighing the results even more than experience in many cases. [22]
Some researchers have echoed the popular claim that "in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much." [23] [24]
However, some studies suggest IQ continues to confer significant benefits even at very high levels. [25] Ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance (Coward and Sackett, 1990). In an analysis of hundreds of siblings, it was found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background (Murray, 1998).
Other studies question the real-world importance of whatever is measured with IQ tests, especially for differences in accumulated wealth and general economic inequality in a nation. IQ correlates highly with school performance but the correlations decrease the closer one gets to real-world outcomes, like with job performance, and still lower with income. It explains less than one sixth of the income variance. [26] Even for school grades, other factors explain most the variance. One study found that, controlling for IQ across the entire population, 90 to 95 percent of economic inequality would continue to exist. [27]
Another recent study (2002) found that wealth, race, and schooling are important to the inheritance of economic status, but IQ is not a major contributor and the genetic transmission of IQ is even less important. [28] Some argue that IQ scores are used as an excuse for not trying to reduce poverty or otherwise improve living standards for all. Claimed low intelligence has historically been used to justify the feudal system and unequal treatment of women (but note that many studies find identical average IQs among men and women; see sex and intelligence). In contrast, others claim that the refusal of "high-IQ elites" to take IQ seriously as a cause of inequality is itself immoral. [29]
[edit]
Public policy
Main article: Intelligence and public policy
Because public policy is often intended to influence the same outcomes (for example to improve education, fight poverty and crime, promote fairness in employment, and counter racial discrimination), policy decisions frequently interact with intelligence measures. In some cases, modern public policy references intelligence measures or even aims to alter cognitive development directly.
While broad consensus exists that intelligence measures neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, controversy surrounds many other aspects of this interaction. Central issues concern whether intelligence measures should be considered in policy decisions, the role of policy in influencing or accounting for group differences in measured intelligence, and the success of policies in light of individual and group intelligence differences. The importance and sensitivity of the policies at issue have produced an often-emotional ongoing debate spanning scholarly inquiry and the popular media from the national to the local level.
[edit]
Use of IQ in the United States legal system
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act generally prohibits employment practices that are unfair or discriminatory. One provision of Title VII, codified at 42 USC 2000e-2(h), specifically provides that it is not an "unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." This statute was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 US 424 (1971). In Griggs, the Court ruled that the reliance solely on a general IQ test that was not found to be specifically relevant to the job at issue was a discriminatory practice where it had a "disparate impact" on hiring. The Court gave considerable weight in its ruling to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation interpreting Section 2002e-2(h)'s reference to a "professionally developed ability test" to mean "a test which fairly measures the knowledge or skills required by the particular job or class of jobs which the applicant seeks, or which fairly affords the employer a chance to measure the applicant's ability to perform a particular job or class of jobs." In other words, the use of any particular test would need to be shown to be relevant to the particular job or class of jobs at issue.
In the educational context, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted similar state and federal statutes to require that IQ Tests not be used in a manner that was determinative of tracking students into classes designed for the mentally retarded. Larry P. v. Riles, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984). The court specifically found that the tests involved were designed and standardized based on an all-white population, and had not undergone a legislatively mandated validation process. In addition, the court ruled that predictive validity for a general population is not sufficient, since the rights of an individual student were at issue, and emphasized that had the tests not been treated as controlling but instead used as part of a thorough and individualized assessment by a school psychologist a different result would have obtained. In September 1982, the judge in the Larry P. case, Federal District Judge Robert F. Peckham, relented in part in response to a lawsuit brought by black parents who wanted their children tested. The parents' attorney, Mark Bredemeier, said his clients viewed the modern special education offered by California schools today as helpful to children with learning disabilities, not a dead-end track, as parents contended in the original 1979 Larry P. case.
The Supreme Court of the United States has utilized IQ test results during the sentencing phase of some criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court case of Atkins v. Virginia, decided June 20, 2002, [30] held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. In Atkins the court stated that
"…[I]t appears that even among those States that regularly execute offenders and that have no prohibition with regard to the mentally retarded, only five have executed offenders possessing a known IQ less than 70 since we decided Penry. The practice, therefore, has become truly unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it."
In overturning the Virginia Supreme Court's holding, the Atkins opinion stated that petitioner's IQ result of 59 was a factor making the imposition of capital punishment a violation of his eighth amendment rights. In the opinion's notes the court provided some of the facts relied upon when reaching their decision
At the sentencing phase, Dr. Nelson testified: "Atkins' full scale IQ is 59. Compared to the population at large, that means less than one percentile…. Mental retardation is a relatively rare thing. It's about one percent of the population." App. 274. According to Dr. Nelson, Atkins' IQ score "would automatically qualify for Social Security disability income." Id., at 280. Dr. Nelson also indicated that of the over 40 capital defendants that he had evaluated, Atkins was only the second individual who met the criteria for mental retardation. Id., at 310. He testified that, in his opinion, Atkins' limited intellect had been a consistent feature throughout his life, and that his IQ score of 59 is not an "aberration, malingered result, or invalid test score." Id., at 308.
.
The Social Security Administration also uses IQ results when deciding disability claims. In certain cases, IQ results alone are used (in those cases where the result shows a "full scale IQ of 59 or less") and in other cases IQ results are used along with other factors (for a "full scale IQ of 60 through 70") when deciding whether a claimant qualifies for Social Security Disability benefits.[31]
In addition, because people with IQs below 80 (the 10th percentile, Department of Defense "Category V") are difficult to train, federal law bars their induction into the military. As of 2005, only 4 percent of the recruits were allowed to score as low as in the 16th to 30th percentile, a grouping known as "Category IV" on the U.S. Armed Forces' mental-aptitude exam. [32]
[edit]
Validity and g-loading of specific tests
While IQ is sometimes treated as an end unto itself, scholarly work on IQ focuses to a large extent on IQ's validity, that is, the degree to which IQ predicts outcomes such as job performance, social pathologies, or academic achievement. Different IQ tests differ in their validity for various outcomes.
Tests also differ in their g-loading, which is the degree to which the test score reflects general mental ability rather than a specific skill or "group factor" such as verbal ability, spatial visualization, or mathematical reasoning). g-loading and validity have been observed to be related in the sense that most IQ tests derive their validity mostly or entirely from the degree to which they measure g (Jensen 1998).
[edit]
Controversy
[edit]
Social construct
Some maintain that IQ is a social construct invented by the privileged classes, used to maintain their privilege. Others maintain that intelligence, measured by IQ or g, reflects a real ability, is a useful tool in performing life tasks and has a biological reality.
The social-construct and real-ability interpretations for IQ differences can be distinguished because they make opposite predictions about what would happen if people were given equal opportunities. The social explanation predicts that equal treatment will eliminate differences, while the real-ability explanation predicts that equal treatment will accentuate differences. Evidence for both outcomes exists. Achievement gaps persist in socioeconomically advantaged, integrated, liberal, suburban school districts in the United States (see Noguera, 2001). Test-score gaps tend to be larger at higher socioeconomic levels (Gottfredson, 2003). Some studies have reported a narrowing of score gaps over time.
The reduction of intelligence to a single score seems extreme and unrealistic to many people. Opponents argue that it is much more useful to know a person's strengths and weaknesses than to know their IQ score. Such opponents often cite the example of two people with the same overall IQ score but very different ability profiles. As measured by IQ tests, most people have highly balanced ability profiles, with differences in subscores being greater among the more intelligent. However, this assumes the ability of IQ tests to comprehensively gauge the wide variety of human intellectual abilities.
The creators of IQ testing did not intend for the tests to gauge a person's worth, and in many (or, as some people suggest, all) situations, IQ may have little relevance.
[edit]
The Mismeasure of Man
Some scientists dispute psychometrics entirely. In The Mismeasure of Man, professor Stephen Jay Gould argues that intelligence tests are based on faulty assumptions and shows their history of being used as the basis for scientific racism. He writes:
…the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status. (pp. 24–25)
He spends much of the book criticizing the concept of IQ, including a historical discussion of how the IQ tests were created and a technical discussion of why g is simply a mathematical artefact. Later editions of the book include criticism of The Bell Curve, also a controversial book. Despite the many updates Gould has made to his book, he has never discussed new data revealed by the modern usage of the MRI machine in psychometrics.
Arthur Jensen, Professor of Educational Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, responds to Gould's criticisms in a paper titled The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons. [33]
[edit]
The view of the American Psychological Association
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
In response to the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs established a task force to write a consensus statement on the state of intelligence research which could be used by all sides as a basis for discussion. The full text of the report is available at a third-party website. [34]
The findings of the task force state that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual (but specifically not population) differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.
They state there is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition. They agree that there are no significant differences between the average IQ scores of males and females. The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, and that these differences cannot be attributed to biases in test construction. While they admit there is no empirical evidence supporting it, the APA task force suggests that explanations based on social status and cultural differences may be possible. Regarding genetic causes, they noted that there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.
The APA journal that published the statement, American Psychologist, subsequently published eleven critical responses in January 1997, most arguing that the report failed to examine adequately the evidence for partly-genetic explanations.
The report was published in 1995 and thus does not include a decade of recent research.
[edit]
Notes
^ Jensen, A.R. (1979)
^ Neisser et al. (August 7, 1995). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ David L. Kirp (July 23, 2006). After the Bell Curve. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Plomin et al. (2001, 2003)
^ Plomin et al. (2001, 2003)
^ Shannon, RWJ (2003, 2004, 2005)
^ June 24, 2002 (Steve Sailer). IQ Defenders Feel Vindicated by Supreme Court. UPI. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Coleen A. Boyle, et.al. (April 19, 1996). Prevalence of Selected Developmental Disabilities in Children 3-10 Years of Age: the Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities Surveillance Program, 1991. National Center for Environmental Health, Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ June 24, 2002 (Steve Sailer). IQ Defenders Feel Vindicated by Supreme Court. UPI. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Phillip McClean (1997,1999). Estimating the Offspring Phenotype. Quantitative Genetics. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Richard Haier (July 19, 2004). Human Intelligence Determined by Volume and Location of Gray Matter Tissue in Brain. Brain Research Institute, UC Irvine College of Medicine. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Nicholas Wade (March 30, 2006). Scans Show Different Growth for Intelligent Brains. Brain Research Institute, UCLA. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ The end of the Flynn Effect. A study of secular trends in mean intelligence scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century.. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in reverse.. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Children are less able than they used to be. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Gottfredson et al. 1994 (ctrl+f "groups")
^ Neisser et al. (August 7, 1995). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ The controversy itself has caused some scientists to debate whether such fields of inquiry are not scientific, or whether group differences in traits are just another area of the science of human nature, as Steven Pinker and others argue. (See Race and intelligence#Utility of research and racism.)
^ GT_DM_5b.pdf (PDF).
^ Clever people 'live longer'. BBC (April 5, 2001). Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ RAND_TR193.pdf (PDF)., MR818.ch2.pdf (PDF).
^ Rich Karlgaard (October 31, 2005). Talent Wars. Forbes. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Detterman and Daniel, 1989.
^ Earl Hunt. The Role of Intelligence in Modern Society pp. 4 (Nonlinearities in Intelligence). American Scientist. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Top1in10000.pdf (PDF). Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Neisser et al. (August 7, 1995). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ IQ best predicts if you will succeed or fail in life. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ intergen.pdf (PDF). Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Steve Sailer. How to Help the Left Half of the Bell Curve. VDARE.com. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ DARYL RENARD ATKINS, PETITIONER v. VIRGINIA (June 20, 2002). Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
^ DoD (September 20, 2005). Department of Defense INSTRUCTION, Number 1145.01. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
^ Jensen, Arthur (1982). "The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons". Contemporary Education Review 1 (2): 121-135. Retrieved on 2006-08-06.
^ Neisser et al. (August 7, 1995). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association. Retrieved on August 6, 2006.
[edit]
See also
High IQ Societies
List of high school dropouts
Nature versus nurture
Emotional intelligence
Theory of multiple intelligences
Gifted
SAT
[edit]
References
Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coward, W.M. and Sackett, P.R. (1990). Linearity of ability-performance relationships: A reconfirmation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75:297–300.
Duncan, J., P. Burgess, and H. Emslie (1995) Fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions. Neuropsychologia, 33(3): p. 261-8.
Duncan, J., et al., A neural basis for general intelligence. Science, 2000. 289(5478): p. 457-60.
Flynn, J.R. (1999). Searching for Justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist, v. 54, p. 5-20
Frey, M.C. and Detterman, D.K. (2003) Scholastic Assessment or g? The Relationship Between the Scholastic Assessment Test and General Cognitive Ability. Psychological Science, 15(6):373–378. PDF
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). "Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life." Intelligence, 24(1), 79–132. PDF
Gottfredson, L.S. (1998). The general intelligence factor. Scientific American Presents, 9(4):24–29. PDF
Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Suppressing intelligence research: Hurting those we intend to help. In R. H. Wright & N. A. Cummings (Eds.), Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to harm (pp. 155–186). New York: Taylor and Francis. Pre-print PDF PDF
Gottfredson, L. S. (in press). "Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva)". In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introdução à psicologia das diferenças individuais. Porto Alegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers. PDF
Gray, J.R., C.F. Chabris, and T.S. Braver, Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nat Neurosci, 2003. 6(3): p. 316-22.
Gray, J.R. and P.M. Thompson, Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2004. 5(6): p. 471-82.
Haier RJ, Jung RE, Yeo RA, et al. (2005). "The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: sex matters". NeuroImage 25: 320–327.
Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption : why children turn out the way they do. New York, Free Press.
Hunt, E. (2001). Multiple views of multiple intelligence. [Review of Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century.]
Jensen, A.R. (1979). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.
Jensen, A.R. (1998). The g Factor. Praeger, Connecticut, USA.
Jensen, A.R. (2006). "Clocking the Mind: Mental Chronometry and Individual Differences." Elsevier Science. --->New release scheduled for early June, 2006.
McClearn, G. E., Johansson, B., Berg, S., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., Petrill, S. A., & Plomin, R. (1997). Substantial genetic influence on cognitive abilities in twins 80 or more years old. Science, 276, 1560–1563.
McDaniel, M.A. (2005) Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence. Intelligence, 33, 337-346.
Mingroni, M.A. (2004). "The secular rise in IQ: Giving heterosis a closer look". Intelligence 32: 65–83.
Murray, Charles (1998). Income Inequality and IQ, AEI Press PDF
Noguera, P.A. (2001). Racial politics and the elusive quest for excellence and equity in education. In Motion Magazine article
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Craig, I. W., & McGuffin, P. (2003). Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & McGuffin, P. (2001). Behavioral genetics (4th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Rowe, D. C., W. J. Vesterdal, and J. L. Rodgers, "The Bell Curve Revisited: How Genes and Shared Environment Mediate IQ-SES Associations," University of Arizona, 1997
Schoenemann, P.T., M.J. Sheehan, and L.D. Glotzer, Prefrontal white matter volume is disproportionately larger in humans than in other primates. Nat Neurosci, 2005.
Shaw P, Greenstein D, Lerch J, Clasen L, Lenroot R, Gogtay N, Evans A, Rapoport J, and Giedd J (2006), "Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents". Nature 440, 676-679.
Tambs K, Sundet JM, Magnus P, Berg K. "Genetic and environmental contributions to the covariance between occupational status, educational attainment, and IQ: a study of twins." Behav Genet. 1989 Mar;19(2):209–22. PMID 2719624.
Thompson, P.M., Cannon, T.D., Narr, K.L., Van Erp, T., Poutanen, V.-P., Huttunen, M., Lönnqvist, J., Standertskjöld-Nordenstam, C.-G., Kaprio, J., Khaledy, M., Dail, R., Zoumalan, C.I., Toga, A.W. (2001). "Genetic influences on brain structure." Nature Neuroscience 4, 1253-1258.
[edit]
External links
[edit]
Collective statements
The Wall Street Journal: Mainstream Science on IntelligencePDF Reprint - Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography.
APA — Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns
APA Committee on Online Psychological Tests and Assessment report
[edit]
Review papers
Scientific American: The General Intelligence Factor
Scientific American: Intelligence Considered
Neurobiology of Intelligence: Science and Ethics PDF
[edit]
Professional Intelligence Testing
"Scans Show Different Growth for Intelligent Brains", New York Times, March 30, 2006
Harcourt Assessment Publishers of the popular Wechsler Scales
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient"
Categories: Articles to be merged since September 2006 | Articles with weasel words | Articles with unsourced statements | Limited geographic scope | Cognitive tests | Psychometrics | Intelligence
hope this helps