IQ and EQ Outcomes SQ

IQ dan EQ = SQ
By Agus Subandi

Intelligence
Intelligence is a term describing one or more capacities of the mind. In different contexts this can be defined in different ways, including the capacities for abstract thought, understanding,communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving.
Intelligence is most widely studied in humans, but has also been observed in animals and plants.Artificial intelligence is the intelligence of machines or the simulation of intelligence in machines.
Numerous definitions of and hypotheses about intelligence have been proposed since before the twentieth century, with no consensus reached by scholars. Within the discipline of psychology, various approaches to human intelligence have been adopted. The psychometric approach is especially familiar to the general public, as well as being the most researched and by far the most widely used in practical settings.[1]
History of the term
Main article: Nous
Intelligence derives from the Latin verb intelligere which derives from inter-legere meaning to "pick out" or discern. A form of this verb,intellectus, became the medieval technical term for understanding, and a translation for the Greek philosophical term nous. This term was however strongly linked to the metaphysical and cosmological theories of teleological scholasticism, including theories of the immortality of the soul, and the concept of the Active Intellect (also known as the Active Intelligence). This entire approach to the study of nature was strongly rejected by the early modern philosophers such as Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and David Hume, all of whom preferred the word "understanding" in their English philosophical works.[2][3] Hobbes for example, in his Latin De Corpore, used "intellectus intelligit" (translated in the English version as "the understanding understandeth") as a typical example of a logical absurdity.[4] The term "intelligence" has therefore become less common in English language philosophy, but it has later been taken up (without the scholastic theories which it once implied) in more contemporary psychology.
Definitions


Humans have pondered the nature of intelligence for centuries.
How to define intelligence is controversial. Groups of scientists have stated the following:
1. from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]
2. from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:
Individuals differ from one another in their 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. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]
Besides the foregoing definitions, these psychology and learning researchers also have defined intelligence as:
Researcher Quotation
Alfred Binet
Judgment, otherwise called "good sense," "practical sense," "initiative," the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique.[8]

David Wechsler
The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.[9]

Cyril Burt
Innate general cognitive ability[10]

Howard Gardner
To my mind, a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem solving — enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to create an effective product — and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems — and thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge.[11]

Linda Gottfredson
The ability to deal with cognitive complexity.[12]

Sternberg & Salter
Goal-directed adaptive behavior.[13]

Reuven Feuerstein
The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."[14]

What is considered intelligent varies with culture. For example, when asked to sort, the Kpelle people take a functional approach. A Kpelleparticipant stated "the knife goes with the orange because it cuts it." When asked how a fool would sort, they sorted linguistically, putting the knife with other implements and the orange with other foods, which is the style considered intelligent in other cultures.[15]
Human intelligence
Psychometrics
Main articles: Intelligence quotient and Psychometrics


The IQs of a large enough population are calculated so that they conform[16] to a normal distribution.
The approach to understanding intelligence with the most supporters and published research over the longest period of time is based on psychometric testing. It is also by far the most widely used in practical settings. Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests include the Stanford-Binet, Raven's Progressive Matrices, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and theKaufman Assessment Battery for Children. There are also psychometric tests that are not intended to measure intelligence itself but some closely related construct such as scholastic aptitude. In the United States examples include the SSAT, the SAT, the ACT, the GRE, the MOAT, theLSAT, and the GMAT.[1]
Intelligence tests are widely used in educational, business, and military settings due to their efficacy in predicting behavior. IQ and g (discussed in the next section) are correlated with many important social outcomes—individuals with low IQs are more likely to be divorced, have a child out of marriage, be incarcerated, and need long-term welfare support, while individuals with high IQs are associated with more years of education, higher status jobs and higher income.[17] Intelligence is significantly correlated with successful training and performance outcomes, and IQ/g is the single best predictor of successful job performance.[18][1]
General intelligence or g
Main article: g factor (psychometrics)
There are many different kinds of IQ tests using a wide variety of test tasks. Some tests consist of a single type of task, others rely on a broad collection of tasks with different contents (visual-spatial, verbal, numerical) and asking for different cognitive processes (e.g., reasoning, memory, rapid decisions, visual comparisons, spatial imagery, reading, and retrieval of general knowledge). The psychologist Charles Spearman early in the 20th century carried out the first formal factor analysis of correlations between various test tasks. He found a trend for all such tests to correlate positively with each other, which is called a positive manifold. Spearman found that a single common factor explained the positive correlations among test. Spearman named it g for "general intelligence factor". He interpreted it as the core of human intelligence that, to a larger or smaller degree, influences success in all cognitive tasks and thereby creates the positive manifold. This interpretation of g as a common cause of test performance is still dominant in psychometrics. An alternative interpretation was recently advanced by van der Maas and colleagues.[19] Their mutualism model assumes that intelligence depends on several independent mechanisms, none of which influences performance on all cognitive tests. These mechanisms support each other so that efficient operation of one of them makes efficient operation of the others more likely, thereby creating the positive manifold.
IQ tasks and tests can be ranked by how highly they load on the g factor. Tests with high g-loadings are those that correlate highly with most other tests. One comprehensive study investigating the correlations between a large collection of tests and tasks[20] has found that theRaven's Progressive Matrices have a particularly high correlation with most other tests and tasks. The Raven's is a test of inductive reasoning with abstract visual material. It consists of a series of problems, sorted approximately by increasing difficulty. Each problem presents a 3 x 3 matrix of abstract designs with one empty cell; the matrix is constructed according to a rule, and the person must find out the rule to determine which of 8 alternatives fits into the empty cell. Because of its high correlation with other tests, the Raven's Progressive Matrices are generally acknowledged as a good indicator of general intelligence. This is problematic, however, because there are substantial gender differences on the Raven's,[21] which are not found when g is measured directly by computing the general factor from a broad collection of tests.[22]
Historical psychometric theories
Main article: Intelligence quotient#History
Several different theories of intelligence have historically been important. Often they emphasized more factors than a single one like in g
Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory
Main article: Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory
Many of the broad, recent IQ tests have been greatly influenced by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. It is argued to reflect much of what is known about intelligence from research. A hierarchy of factors is used. g is at the top. Under it there are 10 broad abilities that in turn are subdivided into 70 narrow abilities. The broad abilities are:[23]
 Fluid Intelligence (Gf): includes the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures.
 Crystallized Intelligence (Gc): includes the breadth and depth of a person's acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate one's knowledge, and the ability to reason using previously learned experiences or procedures.
 Quantitative Reasoning (Gq): the ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and to manipulate numerical symbols.
 Reading & Writing Ability (Grw): includes basic reading and writing skills.
 Short-Term Memory (Gsm): is the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds.
 Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr): is the ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later in the process of thinking.
 Visual Processing (Gv): is the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations.
 Auditory Processing (Ga): is the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions.
 Processing Speed (Gs): is the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention.
 Decision/Reaction Time/Speed (Gt): reflect the immediacy with which an individual can react to stimuli or a task (typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; not to be confused with Gs, which typically is measured in intervals of 2-3 minutes). See Mental chronometry.
Modern tests do not necessarily measure of all of these broad abilities. For example, Gq and Grw may be seen as measures of school achievement and not IQ.[23] Gt may be difficult to measure without special equipment.
g was earlier often subdivided into only Gf and Gc which were though to correspond to the Nonverbal or Performance subtests and Verbal subtests in earlier versions of the popular Wechsler IQ test. More recent research has shown the situation to be more complex.[23]
Controversies
While not necessarily a dispute about the psychometric approach itself, there are several controversies regarding the results from psychometric research. Examples being the role of genetics vs. environment, the causes of average group differences, or the Flynn effect.
One criticism has been against the early research such as craniometry.[24] A reply has been that drawing conclusions from early intelligence research is like condemning the auto industry by criticizing the performance of the Model T.[25]
Several critics, such as Stephen Jay Gould, have been critical of g, seeing it as a statistical artifact, and that IQ tests instead measure a number of unrelated abilities.[26][24] The American Pyschological Association's report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" stated that IQ tests do correlate and that the view that g is a statistical artifact is a minority one.
Other theories
There are critics of IQ, who do not dispute the stability of IQ test scores or the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement rather effectively. They do argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability.[1]
On the other hand, Linda S. Gottfredson (2006) has argued that the results of thousands of studies support the importance of IQ for school and job performance. IQ also predicts or correlates with numerous other life outcomes. In contrast, empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor. She argued that despite this the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.[27]
Multiple intelligences
Main article: Theory of multiple intelligences
Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is based on studies not only of normal children and adults but also by studies of gifted individuals (including so-called "savants"), of persons who have suffered brain damage, of experts and virtuosos, and of individuals from diverse cultures. This led Gardner to break intelligence down into at least eight different components: logical, linguistic, spatial, musical,kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist and existential intelligences. He argues that psychometric tests address only linguistic and logical plus some aspects of spatial intelligence.[1] A major criticism of Gardner's theory is that it has never been tested, or subjected to peer review, by Gardner or anyone else, and indeed that it is unfalsifiable.[28]
Triarchic theory of intelligence
Main article: Triarchic theory of intelligence
Robert Sternberg proposed the triarchic theory of intelligence to provide a more comprehensive description of intellectual competence than traditional differential or cognitive theories of human ability.[29] The triarchic theory describes three fundamental aspects of intelligence. Analytic intelligence comprises the mental processes through which intelligence is expressed. Creative intelligence is necessary when an individual is confronted with a challenge that is nearly, but not entirely, novel or when an individual is engaged in automatizing the performance of a task. Practical intelligence is bound in a sociocultural milieu and involves adaptation to, selection of, and shaping of the environment to maximize fit in the context. The triarchic theory does not argue against the validity of a general intelligence factor; instead, the theory posits that general intelligence is part of analytic intelligence, and only by considering all three aspects of intelligence can the full range of intellectual functioning be fully understood.
More recently, the triarchic theory has been updated and renamed the Theory of Successful Intelligence by Sternberg.[30][31] Intelligence is defined as an individual's assessment of success in life by the individual's own (idiographic) standards and within the individual's sociocultural context. Success is achieved by using combinations of analytical, creative, and practical intelligence. The three aspects of intelligence are referred to as processing skills. The processing skills are applied to the pursuit of success through what were the three elements of practical intelligence: adapting to, shaping of, and selecting of one's environments. The mechanisms that employ the processing skills to achieve success include utilizing one's strengths and compensating or correcting for one's weaknesses.
Sternberg's theories and research on intelligence remain contentious within the scientific community.[32][33][34][35]
Piaget's theory and Neo-Piagetian theories
Main articles: Piaget's theory of cognitive development and Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development
In Piaget's theory of cognitive development the focus is not on mental abilities but rather on a child's mental models of the world. As a child develops, increasingly more accurate models of the world are developed which enable the child to interact with the world better. One example being object permanence where the child develops a model where objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, heard, or touched.
Piaget's theory described four main stages and many sub-stages in the development. Degree of progress through these is correlated with but is not identical with psychometric IQ.[36][37]
Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development expand Piaget's theory in various ways such as also considering psychometric-like factors such as processing speed and working memory, "hypercognitive" factors like self-monitoring, more stages, and more consideration on how progress may vary in different domains such as spatial or social.[38][39]
Piaget's theory has been criticized for the age of appearance of a new model of the world, such as object permanence, being dependent on how the testing is done (see the article on object permanence). More generally, the theory may be very difficult to test empirically due to the difficulty of proving or not proving that a mental model is the explanation for the results of the testing.[40]
Emotional intelligence
Main article: Emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence is an argued ability, capacity, skill or, a self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups. Different models have been proposed for the definition of emotional intelligence and there is disagreement about how the term should be used. The concept is controversial, with some seeing it as a skill or form of personality rather than intelligence, and its predicative ability, especially after controlling for the effects of IQ and the Big Five personality traits, is disputed.
Latent inhibition
Main article: Latent inhibition
Latent inhibition has been related to elements of intelligence, namely creativity and genius.
Evolution of intelligence
Main article: Evolution of human intelligence
Our hominid and human ancestors evolved large and complex brains exhibiting an ever-increasing intelligence through a long evolutionary process. Many different explanations have been proposed.
Improving intelligence
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[41]Conscious efforts to influence intelligence raise ethical issues. Eugenics has variously been regarded as meritorious or deplorable in different periods of history, falling greatly into disrepute after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.[citation needed]
Neuroethics considers the ethical, legal and social implications of neuroscience, and deals with issues such as the difference between treating a human neurological disease and enhancing the human brain, and how wealth impacts access to neurotechnology. Neuroethical issues interact with the ethics of human genetic engineering.
Because intelligence appears to be at least partly dependent on brain structure and the genes shaping brain development, it has been proposed that genetic engineering could be used to enhance the intelligence, a process sometimes called biological uplift in science fiction. Experiments on mice have demonstrated superior ability in learning and memory in various behavioral tasks.[42]
Transhumanist theorists study the possibilities and consequences of developing and using techniques to enhance human abilities and aptitudes, and individuals ameliorating what they regard as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition.
Factors associated with intelligence
A number of factors are known to correlate with IQ but since correlation does not imply causation the true relationship between these factors is uncertain unless there are also other forms of evidence. There are also group differences regarding IQ.
 Environment and intelligence
 Fertility and intelligence
 Flynn effect
 Health and intelligence
 Height and intelligence
 Heritability of IQ
 Longevity and intelligence
 Nations and intelligence
 Neuroscience and intelligence
 Race and intelligence
 Religiosity and intelligence
 Sex and psychology
Animal and plant intelligence
Main articles: Animal cognition and Plant intelligence


The common Chimpanzee can use tools. This chimpanzee is using a stick in order to get food.
Although humans have been the primary focus of intelligence researchers, scientists have also attempted to investigate animal intelligence, or more broadly, animal cognition. These researchers are interested in studying both mental ability in a particular species, and comparing abilities between species. They study various measures of problem solving, as well as mathematical and language abilities. Some challenges in this area are defining intelligence so that it means the same thing across species (e.g. comparing intelligence between literate humans and illiterate animals), and then operationalizing a measure that accurately compares mental ability across different species and contexts.
Wolfgang Köhler's pioneering research on the intelligence of apes is a classic example of research in this area. Stanley Coren's book, The Intelligence of Dogs[unreliable source?] is a notable popular book on the topic.[43] Nonhuman animals particularly noted and studied for their intelligence include chimpanzees, bonobos (notably the language-using Kanzi) and other great apes, dolphins, elephants and to some extent parrots and ravens. Controversy exists over the extent to which these judgments of intelligence are accurate.[citation needed]
Cephalopod intelligence also provides important comparative study. Cephalopods appear to exhibit characteristics of significant intelligence, yet their nervous systems differ radically from those of most other notably intelligent life-forms (mammals and birds).
It has been argued that plants should also be classified as being intelligent based on their ability to sense the environment and adjust theirmorphology, physiology and phenotype accordingly.[44][45]
Artificial intelligence


The artificial intelligence quiz show contestant "Watson", appearing on the US quiz show Jeopardy! in 2011.
Main article: Artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence (or AI) is both the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science which aims to create it, through "the study and design of intelligent agents"[46] or "rational agents", where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success.[47] Achievements in artificial intelligence include constrained and well-defined problems such as games, crossword-solving and optical character recognition. General intelligence or strong AI has not yet been achieved and is a long-term goal of AI research.
Among the traits that researchers hope machines will exhibit are reasoning, knowledge, planning,learning, communication, perception, and the ability to move and manipulate objects.[46][47] In the field of artificial intelligence there is no consensus on how closely the brain should be simulated.
Intelligence in culture and arts
The concept of intelligence has been treated in many works:
 Flowers for Algernon, written by Daniel Keyes and first published as a book in 1966.
 Genesis, written by Bernard Beckett, published in 2006, where a character is sentenced to participate in an experiment involving the continued education of an artificially intelligent android.
References
1. ^ a b c d e Neisser, U.; Boodoo, G.; Bouchard, T. J. , J.; Boykin, A. W.; Brody, N.; Ceci, S. J.; Halpern, D. F.; Loehlin, J. C. et al. (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns". American Psychologist 51: 77. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77. edit Article in Wikipedia:Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns
2. ^ Martinich, Aloysius (1995), A Hobbes Dictionary, Blackwell, p. 305
3. ^ Nidditch, Peter, "Foreward", An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford University Press, p. xxii
4. ^ English, and Latin version.
5. ^ Gottfredson, L.S. (1997). "Foreword to "intelligence and social policy"" (pdf). Intelligence 24 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90010-6. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
6. ^ Neisser, U.; Boodoo, G.; Bouchard Jr, T.J.; Boykin, A.W.; Brody, N.; Ceci, S.J.; Halpern, D.F.; Loehlin, J.C.; Perloff, R.; Sternberg, R.J.; Others, (1998). "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns".Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development 1997.ISBN 9780876308707. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
7. ^ Perloff, R.; Sternberg, R.J.; Urbina, S. (1996). "Intelligence: knowns and unknowns". American Psychologist 51.
8. ^ Binet, Alfred (1916) [1905]. "New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals". The development of intelligence in children: The Binet-Simon Scale. E.S. Kite (Trans.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. pp. 37–90. Retrieved 10 July 2010. "originally published as Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux. L'Année Psychologique, 11, 191-244"
9. ^ Wechsler, D (1944). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0195022963. OCLC 5950992 219871557 5950992. ASIN = B000UG9J7E
10. ^ Burt, C. (1931). "The Differentiation Of Intellectual Ability". The British Journal of Educational Psychology.
11. ^ Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. 1993. ISBN 0465025102. OCLC 27749478 32820474 56327755 9732290 221932479 27749478 32820474 56327755 9732290.
12. ^ Gottfredson, L. (1998). "The General Intelligence Factor" (pdf).Scientific American Presents 9 (4): 24–29. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
13. ^ Sternberg RJ; Salter W (1982). Handbook of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521296870.OCLC 38083152 8170650 11226466 38083152 8170650.
14. ^ Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, S., Falik, L & Rand, Y. (1979; 2002). Dynamic assessments of cognitive modifiability. ICELP Press, Jerusalem: Israel; Feuerstein, R. (1990). The theory of structural modifiability. In B. Presseisen (Ed.), Learning and thinking styles: Classroom interaction. Washington, DC: National Education Associations
15. ^ Glick (1975) reported in Resnick, L. (1976). The Nature of Intelligence. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. ^ S.E. Embretson & S.P.Reise: Item response theory for psychologists, 2000. "...for many other psychological tests, normal distributions are achieved by normalizing procedures. For example, intelligence tests..." Found on:http://books.google.se/books?id=rYU7rsi53gQC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=%22intelligence+tests%22+normalize&source=bl&ots=ZAIQEgaa6Q&sig=q-amDaZqx7Ix6mMkvIDMnj9M9O0&hl=sv&ei=lEEJTNqSIYWMOPqLuRE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
17. ^ Geary, David M. (2004). The Origin of the Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence. American Psychological Association (APA). ISBN 1591471818. OCLC 222186498 224277260 224979556 54906982 56659187 57354730 80049339 217494183 222186498 224277260 224979556 54906982 56659187 57354730 80049339.
18. ^ Ree, M.J.; Earles, J.A. (1992). "Intelligence Is the Best Predictor of Job Performance". Current Directions in Psychological Science 1(3): 86–89. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768746.
19. ^ van der Maas, H. L. J.; Dolan, C. V.; Grasman, R. P. P. P.; Wicherts, J. M.; Huizenga, H. M.; Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2006). "A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism". Psychological Review 113: 842-861.
20. ^ Marshalek, B.; Lohman, D. F. Snow, R. E. (1983). "The complexity continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence".Intelligence 7: 107-127.
21. ^ Lynnn, R.; Irving, P. (2004). "Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis.". Intelligence 32: 481-498.
22. ^ Halpern, D. F.; LaMay, M. L. (2000). "The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence". Educational Psychology Review 12: 229-246.
23. ^ a b c IQ Testing 101, Alan S. Kaufman, 2009, Springer Publishing Company, ISBN-10: 0826106293 ISBN-13: 9780826106292
24. ^ a b The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould, Norton, 1996
25. ^ Jensen, A.R. (1942). "The debunking of scientific fossils and straw persons". Contemporary Education Review 1 (2): 121–135. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
26. ^ Schlinger, H.D. (2003). "The Myth of Intelligence". The Psychological Record 53 (1): 15–33. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
27. ^ Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). 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.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers.
28. ^ http://www.cortland.edu/psych/mi/critique.html[dead link]
29. ^ Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.ISBN 0521262542.
30. ^ Sternberg, R.J. (1978). "The theory of successful intelligence".Review of General Psychology 3: 292–316. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.3.4.292.
31. ^ Sternberg, R.J. (2003). "A broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful intelligence". Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research 55: 139–154. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.139.
32. ^ Brody, N. (2003). "Construct validation of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test: Comment and reanalysis". Intelligence 31: 319–329.doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00087-3.
33. ^ Brody, N. (2003). "What Sternberg should have concluded".Intelligence 31: 339–342. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00190-3.
34. ^ Gottfredson, L.S. (2003). "Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence". Intelligence 31: 343–397.doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00085-5.
35. ^ Gottfredson, L.S. (2003). "On Sternberg's 'Reply to Gottfredson'".Intelligence 31: 415–424. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00024-2.
36. ^ Elkind, D., & Flavell, J. (1969). Studies in cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jean Piaget. New York: Oxford University Press
37. ^ Intelligence and IQ, Landmark Issues and Great Debates, Richard A. Weinberg AmericanVol. 44, No. 2, 98-104
38. ^ Demetriou, A. (1998). Cognitive development. In A. Demetriou, W. Doise, K.F.M. van Lieshout (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology (pp. 179-269). London: Wiley.
39. ^ Demetriou, A., Mouyi, A., & Spanoudis, G. (2010). The development of mental processing. Nesselroade, J.R. (2011). Methods in the study of life-span human development: Issues and answers. In W.F. Overton (Ed.), Biology, cognition and methods across the life-span. Volume 1 of the Handbook of life-span development (pp. 36-35), Editor-in-chief: R.M. Lerner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
40. ^ Kitchener, Richard F. (1993). "Piaget's epistemic subject and science education: Epistemological vs. Psychological issues".Science and Education 2 (2): 137–148.doi:10.1007/BF00592203. edit
41. ^ Osborn, F. (1937). "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy".American Sociological Review 2 (3): 389–397.doi:10.2307/2084871. Retrieved 2010-03-20.
42. ^ Tang YP, Shimizu E, Dube GR, et al. (1999). "Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice". Nature 401 (6748): 63–9. doi:10.1038/43432. PMID 10485705.
43. ^ Coren, Stanley (1995). The Intelligence of Dogs. Bantam Books.ISBN 0-553-37452-4. OCLC 30700778.
44. ^ Trewavas, Anthony (September 2005). "Green plants as intelligent organisms". Trends in Plant Science 10 (9): 413–419.doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2005.07.005. PMID 16054860.
45. ^ Trewavas, A. (2002). "Mindless mastery". Nature 415 (6874): 841.doi:10.1038/415841a. PMID 11859344. edit
46. ^ a b Goebel, Randy; Poole, David L.; Mackworth, Alan K. (1997) (pdf). Computational intelligence: A logical approach. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 1. ISBN 0195102703.
47. ^ a b Canny, John; Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0137903952. OCLC 60211434 61259102 51325314 60211434 61259102.



Intelligence quotient
"IQ" redirects here. For other uses, see IQ (disambiguation).


An example of one kind of IQ test item, modeled after items in the Raven's Progressive Matrices test.
An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several different standardized testsdesigned to assess intelligence. The term "IQ" comes from the German Intelligenz-Quotient. When modern IQ tests are constructed the median score is set to 100 and a standard deviation to 15. Today almost all IQ tests adhere to the assignment of 15 IQ points to each standard deviation but this has not been the case historically. Approximately 95% of the population have scores within two standard deviations of the mean. If one SD is 15 points, then 95% of the population are within a range of 70 to 130.
IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality, parental social status,[1] and, to a substantial degree, parental IQ. While the heritability of IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, controversy remains regarding the significance of heritability estimates,[2][3] and the mechanisms of inheritance are still a matter of some debate.[4]
IQ scores are used in many contexts: as predictors of educational achievement or special needs, by social scientists who study the distribution of IQ scores in populations and the relationships between IQ score and other variables, and as predictors of job performance and income.
The average IQ scores for many populations have been rising at an average rate of three points per decade since the early 20th century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. It is disputed whether these changes in scores reflect real changes in intellectual abilities.
History
See also: History of the race and intelligence controversy
Early history
The first large scale mental test may have been the imperial examination system in China. Modern mental testing began in France in the nineteenth century. It contributed to separating mental retardation from mental illness and reducing the neglect, torture, and ridicule heaped on both groups.[5]
Englishman Francis Galton, half-cousin to Charles Darwin, created the terms psychometrics and eugenics, and a method for measuring intelligence based on nonverbal sensory-motor tests. It was initially popular but was abandoned after the discovery that it had no relationship to outcomes such as college grades.[5][6]
French psychologists Alfred Binet, together with Victor Henri and Théodore Simon, after about 15 years of development, published the Binet-Simon test in 1905 which focused on verbal abilities. It was intended to identify mental retardation in school children. American psychologistHenry H. Goddard published a translation of it in 1910. The eugenics movement in the USA seized on it as a means to give them credibility in diagnosing mental retardation. American psychologist Lewis Terman at Stanford University revised the Binet-Simon scale which resulted in the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (1916). It became the most popular test in the United States for decades.[5][7][8][9]
Charles Spearman created the theory of a general intelligence factor in 1904. It argued that intelligence is largely a single global ability calledg but that there are also smaller, specific factors or abilities for specific areas, labeled s. The theory remains influential and is discussed in a later section.[5]
During World War I a way was needed to evaluate and assign recruits. This caused a rapid development of several mental tests. The testing also caused controversy, misinterpretations of the data such as recent immigrants with poor English being deemed inferior in intellect, accusations of racism, and much public debate. Nonverbal or "Performance" tests were developed for those who could not speak English or were suspected of malingering.[5]
After World War One
However, a great deal of positive post war publicity on army psychological testing helped to make psychology a respected field.[10]Subsequently there was an increase in jobs and funding in psychology.[11] Group intelligence tests were developed for and became widely used in both primary and secondary schools, universities and industry.[12]
L.L. Thurstone (1938) argued for a model of intelligence that included seven unrelated factors (verbal comprehension, word fluency, number facility, spatial visualization, associative memory, perceptual speed, reasoning, and induction). While not widely used, it influenced later theories.[5]
David Wechsler produced the first version of his test in 1939. It gradually become more popular and overtook the Binet in the 1960s. It has been revised several times, as is common for IQ tests in order to incorporate new research. One explanation is that psychologists and educators wanted more information than the single score from the Binet. Wechsler’s 10+ subtests provided this. Another is that the Binet focused on verbal abilities while the Wechsler also included non-verbal abilities. The Binet has also been revised several times and is now similar to the Wechsler in several aspects and but the Wechsler continues to be the most popular test in the United States.[5]
J.P. Guilford's Structure of Intellect (1967) model used three dimensions which when combined yielded a total of 120 types of intelligence. It was popular in the 1970s and early 1980s but faded due to both practical problems and theoretical criticisms.[5]
Alexander Luria's earlier work on neuropsychological processes lead to the PASS theory (1997). It argued that only looking at one general factor was inadequate for researchers and clinicians who worked with learning disabilities, attention disorders, mental retardation, and interventions for such disabilities. The PASS model covers four kinds of processes. The (P)lanning processes involve decision making, problem solving, and performing activities and requires goal setting and self-monitoring. The (A)ttention/arousal process involves selectively attending to a particular stimulus, ignoring distractions, and maintaining vigilance. (S)imultaneous processing involves the integration of stimuli into a group and requires the observation of relationships. (S)uccessive processing involves the integration of stimuli into serial order. The planning and attention/arousal components comes from structures located in the frontal lobe, and the simultaneous and successive processes come from structures located in the posterior region of the cortex.[13][14][15] It has influenced some recent IQ tests and been seen as a complement to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory described below.[5]
Raymond Cattell (1941) proposed two types of cognitive abilities in a revision of Spearman's concept of general intelligence. Fluid intelligence(Gf) was hypothesized as the ability to solve novel problems by using reasoning and crystallized intelligence (Gc) was hypothesized as a knowledge-based ability that was very dependent on education and experience. In addition, fluid intelligence was hypothesized to decline with age while crystallized intelligence was largely resistant. The theory was almost forgotten but revived by his student John L. Horn (1966) who later argued that Gf and Gc were only two among several factors and he eventually identified 9 or 10 broad abilities. The theory continued to be called Gf-Gc theory.[5]
John B. Carroll (1993) after a comprehensive re-analysis of earlier data proposed the Three Stratum Theory, which is a hierarchical model with three levels. At the bottom is the first stratum which consists of narrow abilities that are highly specialized (e.g., induction, spelling ability). The second stratum consists of broad abilities. Carroll identified eight second-stratum abilities. Carroll accepted Spearman's concept of general intelligence, for the most part, as a representation of the uppermost third stratum.[16][17]
More recently (1999), a merging of the Gf-Gc theory of Cattell and Horn with Carroll's Three-Stratum theory has led to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. It has greatly influenced many of the current IQ tests.[5]
Mental age vs. modern method


The IQs of a large enough population are calculated so that they conform[18] to a normal distribution.
The term "IQ" comes from German "Intelligenz-Quotient", coined by the German psychologist William Stern in 1912, who proposed a method of scoring children's intelligence tests. He calculated the IQ score as thequotient of the "mental age" (the age group which scored such a result on average) of the test-taker and the "chronological age" of the test-taker, multiplied by 100. Terman used this system for the first version of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales.[19] This method has several problems such as not working for adults.
Wechsler introduced a different procedure for his test that is now used by almost all IQ tests. When an IQ test is constructed, a standardizationsample representative of the general population takes the test. The median result is defined to be equivalent to 100 IQ points. In almost all modern tests, a standard deviation of the results is defined to equivalent to 15 IQ points. When a subject takes an IQ test, the result is ranked compared to the results of normalization sample and the subject is given an IQ score equal to those with the same test result in the normalization sample. Although the term "IQ" is still in common use, it is now an inaccurate description, mathematically speaking, since a quotient is no longer involved.
The values of 100 and 15 were chosen in order to get somewhat similar scores as in the older type of test. Likely as a part of the rivalry between the Binet and the Wechsler, the Binet until 2003 chose to have 16 for one SD, causing considerable confusion. Today almost all tests use 15 for one SD. Modern scores are sometimes referred to as "deviation IQs," while older method age-specific scores are referred to as "ratio IQs."[5][20]
[edit]Modern tests
Well-known modern IQ tests include Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Stanford-Binet, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, and Raven's Progressive Matrices.
Approximately 95% or of the population have scores within two standard deviations of the mean. If one SD is 15 points as is common in almost all modern tests, then 95% of the population are within a range of 70 to 130. Alternatively, two-thirds of the population have IQ scores within one SD of the mean, i.e. within the range 85-115.
IQ scales are ordinally scaled.[21][22][23][24] While one standard deviation is 15 points, and two SDs are 30 points, and so on, this does not imply that cognitive ability is linearly related to IQ, such that IQ 50 means half the cognitive ability of IQ 100. In particular, IQ points are not percentage points.
The correlation between IQ tests and achievement tests is about 0.7.[5][25]
[edit]Reliability and validity
IQ scores can differ to some degree for the same individual on different IQ tests (age 12–13 years).[26]

Pupil KABC-II WISC-III WJ-III
Asher 90 95 111
Brianna 125 110 105
Colin 100 93 101
Danica 116 127 118
Elpha 93 105 93
Fritz 106 105 105
Georgi 95 100 90
Hector 112 113 103
Imelda 104 96 97
Jose 101 99 86
Keoku 81 78 75
Leo 116 124 102
Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability. A high reliability implies that while test-takers can have varying scores on differing occasions when taking the same test and can vary in scores on different IQ tests taken at the same age, the scores generally agree. A test-taker's score on any one IQ test is surrounded by an error band that shows, to a specified degree of confidence, what the test-taker's true score is likely to be. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about 3 points, or in other words, the odds are about 2 out of 3 that a persons true IQ is in range from 3 points above to 3 points below the test IQ. Another description is that there is a 95% chance that the true IQ is in range from 4-5 points above to 4-5 points below the test IQ, depending on the test in question. Clinical psychologists generally regard them as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[5][27][28]
The general intelligence factor (g)
Main article: General intelligence factor
There are many different kinds of IQ tests using a wide variety of methods. Some tests are visual, some are verbal, some tests only use of abstract-reasoning problems, and some tests concentrate on arithmetic, spatial imagery, reading, vocabulary, memory or general knowledge. The psychologistCharles Spearman early this century made the first formal factor analysis of correlations between the tests. He found that a single common factor explained for the positive correlations among test. This is an argument still accepted in principle by many psychometricians. Spearman named it g for "general intelligence factor". In any collections of IQ tests, by definition the test that best measures g is the one that has the highest correlations with all the others. Most of these g-loaded tests typically involve some form of abstract reasoning. Therefore Spearman and others have regarded g as the perhaps genetically determined real essence of intelligence. This is still a common but not proven view. Other factor analyses of the data are with different results are possible. Some psychometricians regard g as a statistical artifact. The accepted best measure of g is Raven's Progressive Matrices which is a test of visual reasoning.[29]
Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory
Many of the broad, recent IQ tests have been greatly influenced by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. It is argued to reflect much of what is known about intelligence from research. A hierarchy of factors is used. g is at the top. Under it there are 10 broad abilities that in turn are subdivided into 70 narrow abilities. The broad abilities are:[5]
 Fluid Intelligence (Gf): includes the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures.
 Crystallized Intelligence (Gc): includes the breadth and depth of a person's acquired knowledge, the ability to communicate one's knowledge, and the ability to reason using previously learned experiences or procedures.
 Quantitative Reasoning (Gq): the ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and to manipulate numerical symbols.
 Reading & Writing Ability (Grw): includes basic reading and writing skills.
 Short-Term Memory (Gsm): is the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds.
 Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr): is the ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later in the process of thinking.
 Visual Processing (Gv): is the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations.
 Auditory Processing (Ga): is the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions.
 Processing Speed (Gs): is the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention.
 Decision/Reaction Time/Speed (Gt): reflect the immediacy with which an individual can react to stimuli or a task (typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; not to be confused with Gs, which typically is measured in intervals of 2–3 minutes). See Mental chronometry.
Modern tests do not necessarily measure of all of these broad abilities. For example, Gq and Grw may be seen as measures of school achievement and not IQ.[5] Gt may be difficult to measure without special equipment.
g was earlier often subdivided into only Gf and Gc which were thought to correspond to the Nonverbal or Performance subtests and Verbal subtests in earlier versions of the popular Wechsler IQ test. More recent research has shown the situation to be more complex.[5]
Modern comprehensive IQ tests no longer give a single score. Although they still give an overall score, they now also gives scores for many of these more restricted abilities, identifying particular strengths and weaknesses of an individual.[5]
Flynn effect
Main article: Flynn effect
Since the early 20th century, raw scores on IQ tests have increased in most parts of the world.[30][31][32] When a new version of an IQ test is normed, the standard scoring is set so that performance at the population median results in a score of IQ 100. The phenomenon of rising raw score performance means that if test-takers are scored by a constant standard scoring rule, IQ test scores have been rising at an average rate of around three IQ points per decade. This phenomenon was named the Flynn effect in the book The Bell Curve after James R. Flynn, the author who did the most to bring this phenomenon to the attention of psychologists.[33][34]
Researchers have been exploring the issue of whether the Flynn effect is equally strong on performance of all kinds of IQ test items, whether the effect may have ended in some developed nations, whether or not there are social subgroup differences in the effect, and what possible causes of the effect might be.[35] Flynn's observation has prompted much new research in psychology and "demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way."[31]
IQ and age
IQ can change to some degree over the course of childhood.[36] However, in one longitudinal study, the mean IQ scores of tests at ages 17 and 18 were correlated at r=.86 with the mean scores of tests at ages 5, 6 and 7 and at r=.96 with the mean scores of tests at ages 11, 12 and 13.[37]
IQ scores for children are relative to children of a similar age. That is, a child of a certain age does not do as well on the tests as an older child or an adult with the same IQ. But relative to persons of a similar age, or other adults in the case of adults, they do equally well if the IQ scores are the same.[37]
For decades, it has been reported in practitioners' handbooks and textbooks on IQ testing that IQ declines with age after the beginning of adulthood. However, later researchers pointed out that this phenomenon is related to the Flynn effect and is in part a cohort effect rather than a true aging effect.
There have been a variety of studies of IQ and aging since the norming of the first Wechsler Intelligence Scale drew attention to IQ differences in different age groups of adults. Current consensus is that fluid intelligence generally declines with age after early adulthood, while crystallized intelligence remains intact. Both cohort effects (the birth year of the test-takers) and practice effects (test-takers taking the same form of IQ test more than once) must be controlled for to gain accurate data. It is unclear whether any lifestyle intervention can preserve fluid intelligence into older ages.[38]
The peak of capacity for both fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence occurs at age 26. This is followed by a slow decline.[39]
Heritability of IQ
Environmental and genetic factors play a role in determining IQ. Their relative importance have been the subject of much research and debate.
“ Heritability"
See also: Heritability of IQ and Environment and intelligence
"Heritability" is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genotype within a defined population in a specific environment. A heritability of 1 indicates that all variation is genetic in origin and a heritability of 0 indicates that none of the variation is genetic. There are a number of points to consider when interpreting heritability.[40] Some examples:
 Heritability measures the proportion of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes, and not the proportion of a trait caused by genes. Thus, if the environment relevant to a given trait changes in a way that affects all members of the population equally, the mean value of the trait will change without any change in its heritability (because the variation or differences among individuals in the population will stay the same). This has evidently happened for height: the heritability of stature is high, but average heights continue to increase.[37] Thus, even in developed nations, a high heritability of a trait does not necessarily mean that average group differences are due to genes.[37][41] Some have gone further, and used height as an example in order to argue that "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability."[42] However, others argue that IQ is highly stable during life and has been largely resistant to interventions aimed to change it long-term and substantially.[43][44][45]
 A common error is to assume that a heritability figure is necessarily unchangeable. The value of heritability can change if the impact of environment (or of genes) in the population is substantially altered.[37] If the environmental variation encountered by different individuals increases, then the heritability figure would decrease. On the other hand, if everyone had the same environment, then heritability would be 100%. The population in developing nations often have more diverse environments than in developed nations. This would mean that heritability figures would be lower in developing nations. Another example is phenylketonuria which previously caused mental retardation for everyone who had this genetic disorder and thus had a heritability of 100%. Today, this can be prevented by following a modified diet which has lowered heritability.
 A high heritability of a trait does not mean that environmental effects such as learning are not involved. Vocabulary size, for example, is very substantially heritable (and highly correlated with general intelligence) although every word in an individual's vocabulary is learned. In a society in which plenty of words are available in everyone's environment, especially for individuals who are motivated to seek them out, the number of words that individuals actually learn depends to a considerable extent on their genetic predispositions and thus heritability is high.[37]
 Since heritability increases during childhood and adolescence, and even increases greatly between 16–20 years of age and adulthood, one should be cautious drawing conclusions regarding the role of genetics and environment from studies where the participants are not followed until they are adults. Furthermore, there may be differences regarding the effects on g and on non-g factors, with g possibly being harder to affect and environmental interventions disproportionately affecting non-g factors.[45]
Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States.[37][46][47] It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, the opposite occurs. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[48] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[37] There is an ongoing debate, as discussed in the Heritability of IQ article, regarding if these high heritability estimates are too high due to not adequately considering factors such as that the environment may be relatively more important in families with low socio-economic status or the effect of the maternal (fetal) environment.
Shared family environment
There are aspects of environments that family members have in common (for example, characteristics of the home). This shared family environment accounts for 0.25-0.35 of the variation in IQ in childhood. By late adolescence it is is quite low (zero in some studies). There is a similar effect for several other psychological traits. These studies have not looked the effects of extreme environments such as in abusive families.[37][49][50][51]
Non-shared family environment and environment outside the family
Although parents treat their children differently, such differential treatment explains only a small amount of non-shared environmental influence. One suggestion is that children react differently to the same environment due to different genes. More likely influences may be the impact of peers and other experiences outside the family.[37][50]
Individual genes
A number of individual genes have been reported to be associated with IQ. Examples include CHRM2, microcephalin, and ASPM. However, Deary and colleagues (2009) argued that there are still almost no replicated evidence.[52] About 20,000 genes are thought to have an impact on the development and functionality of the brain.[53]
Regression towards the mean
Regression towards the mean is a statistical phenomenon that occurs when an outcome is determined by many independent factors. If an outcome is extreme, then this occurred because most of the independent factors agreed by chance. This is unlikely to occur again so to the next outcome is likely to be less extreme. If IQ is determined by many factors, genetic and/or environmental, then they must mostly agree in the same direction in order to produce an extreme IQ. The child of a person with an extreme IQ is unlikely to have all the factors agree so similarly so the child is on average likely to have a less extreme IQ.
People in professional occupations have on average 25 points higher IQ than unskilled workers. For their children the difference is 21 points. This is in itself not evidence for genetics or environment since the environment for the children likely differs greatly with it on average being more stimulating for the children of professionals.[5]
Gene-environment interaction
Dickens and Flynn (2001) argued that the "heritability" figure includes both a direct effect of the genotype on IQ and also indirect effects where the genotype changes the environment, in turn affecting IQ. That is, those with a higher IQ tend to seek out stimulating environments that further increase IQ. The direct effect can initially have been very small but feedback loops can create large differences in IQ. In their model an environmental stimulus can have a very large effect on IQ, even in adults, but this effect also decays over time unless the stimulus continues (the model could be adapted to include possible factors, like nutrition in early childhood, that may cause permanent effects). The Flynn effect can be explained by a generally more stimulating environment for all people. The authors suggest that programs aiming to increase IQ would be most likely to produce long-term IQ gains if they taught children how to replicate outside the program the kinds of cognitively demanding experiences that produce IQ gains while they are in the program and motivate them to persist in that replication long after they have left the program.[54][55]
Interventions
Interventions such as the Head Start Program have not produced lasting gains, although the more intensive Abecedarian Project have.[37] In general, many interventions, as those described below, have shown short-term effects on IQ, but long-term follow-up is often missing.
A placebo-controlled double-blind experiment found that vegetarians who took 5 grams of creatine per day for six weeks showed a significant improvement on two separate tests of fluid intelligence, Raven's Progressive Matrices, and the backward digit span test from the WAIS. The treatment group was able to repeat longer sequences of numbers from memory and had higher overall IQ scores than the control group. The researchers concluded that "supplementation with creatine significantly increased intelligence compared with placebo."[56] A subsequent study found that creatine supplements improved cognitive ability in the elderly.[57] A study on young adults (0.03 g/kg/day for six weeks, e.g., 2 g/day for 150-pound individual) failed, however, to find any improvements.[58]
Musical training in childhood has also been found to correlate with higher than average IQ.[59]
Recent studies have shown that training in using one's working memory may increase IQ. A study on young adults published in April 2008 by a team from the Universities of Michigan and Bern supports the possibility of the transfer of fluid intelligence from specifically designedworking memory training.[60][61] Further research will be needed to determine nature, extent and duration of the proposed transfer. Among other questions, it remains to be seen whether the results extend to other kinds of fluid intelligence tests than the matrix test used in the study, and if so, whether, after training, fluid intelligence measures retain their correlation with educational and occupational achievement or if the value of fluid intelligence for predicting performance on other tasks changes. It is also unclear whether the training is durable of extended periods of time.[62]
IQ and brain anatomy
Main article: Neuroscience and intelligence
Some studies have not found a correlation between some measures of brain size and IQ. Thus, Jensen and Reed in a 1993 study found no correlation between cranial capacity and IQ in nonpathological subjects (N=211).[63] However, more recent meta-analyses and reviews find such a correlation. Rushton and Ankney (2009) in a literature review write that in 28 samples using brain imaging techniques the mean brain size/g correlation was 0.40 (N = 1,389). In 59 samples using external head size measures it was 0.20 (N = 63,405). In 6 studies that corrected for that different IQ subtests measure g unequally well, the mean correlation was 0.63. Some studies have found the whole brain to be important for g while others have found the frontal lobes to be particularly important. Two studies founds correlations of 0.48 and 0.56 between brain size and the number of neurons in the cerebral cortex (based on counting in representative areas.[64][65]
Luders and colleagues in a literature review (2009) write that the majority of data shows that both gray matter and white matter volume correlate with IQ but the correlation is stronger for gray matter. Increased number of neurons in the gray matter may explain the higher correlation but not necessarily so since glucose consumption and intelligence measures correlate negatively which may mean intelligent individuals use their neurons more efficiently, such as being more efficient in their formation of synapses between neurons which help to create more efficient neural circuitry. The white matter correlation may be due to more myelination or better control of pH and thus enhanced neural transmission. For more specific regions, the most frequently replicated positive correlations appear localized in the lateral and medialfrontal lobe cortex. Positive correlations are also found with volume in many other areas. Cortical thickness may be a better measure than gray matter volume although this may vary with age with an initially negative correlation in early childhood becoming positive later. The explanation may again be that more intelligent individuals manage their synapses better. During evolution not only brain size but also brain folding has increased which has increased the surface area. Convolution data may support the "The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory" which see medial cortex structures as particularly important. Volume of the corpus callosum or subareas were found to be important in several studies which may be due to more efficient inter-hemispheric information transfer.[66]
Brain injuries at an early age isolated to one side of the brain typically results in relatively spared intellectual function and with IQ in the normal range.[67]
Health and IQ
Main article: Health and intelligence
Proper childhood nutrition appears critical for cognitive development; malnutrition can lower IQ. For example, iodine deficiency causes a fall, in average, of 12 IQ points.[68] It is expected that average IQ in third world countries will increase if malnutrition of various kinds is eradicated.
One recent study found that a group of children with the "C" version of the FADS2 gene who were breastfed acquired on average 7 IQ points higher than to those with the "G" allele of the gene.[69][70] Other studies have failed to replicate any correlation between the FADS2 gene,[71]breastfeeding and IQ, while others show a negative effect on IQ when combining bottledfeeding, and the "G" version of FADS2 .[72]
People with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder[73] and schizophrenia[74][75] are less prevalent in higher IQ bands. People in the midsts of a major depressive episode have been shown to have a lower IQ than when without symptoms and lower cognitive ability than people without depression of equivalent verbal intelligence.[76][77]
A study of 11,282 individuals in Scotland who took intelligence tests at ages 7, 9 and 11 in the 1950s and 1960s, found an "inverse linear association" between childhood IQ scores and hospital admissions for injuries in adulthood. The association between childhood IQ and the risk of later injury remained even after accounting for factors such as the child's socioeconomic background.[78] Research in Scotland has also shown that a 15-point lower IQ meant people had a fifth less chance of living to 76, while those with a 30-point disadvantage were 37% less likely than those with a higher IQ to live that long.[79]
A decrease in IQ has also been shown as an early predictor of late-onset Alzheimer's Disease and other forms of dementia. In a 2004 study, Cervilla and colleagues showed that tests of cognitive ability provide useful predictive information up to a decade before the onset of dementia.[80] However, when diagnosing individuals with a higher level of cognitive ability, in this study those with IQs of 120 or more,[81]patients should not be diagnosed from the standard norm but from an adjusted high-IQ norm that measured changes against the individual's higher ability level. In 2000, Whalley and colleagues published a paper in the journal Neurology, which examined links between childhood mental ability and late-onset dementia. The study showed that mental ability scores were significantly lower in children who eventually developed late-onset dementia when compared with other children tested.[82]
IQ is also negatively correlated with certain diseases.
Several factors can lead to significant cognitive impairment, particularly if they occur during pregnancy and childhood when the brain is growing and the blood-brain barrier is less effective. Such impairment may sometimes be permanent, or may sometimes be partially or wholly compensated for by later growth. Several harmful factors may also combine, possibly causing greater impairment.
Developed nations have implemented several health policies regarding nutrients and toxins known to influence cognitive function. These include laws requiring fortification of certain food products and laws establishing safe levels of pollutants (e.g. lead, mercury, and organochlorides). Comprehensive policy recommendations targeting reduction of cognitive impairment in children have been proposed.[83]
In terms of the effect of one's intelligence on health, in one British study, high childhood IQ was shown to correlate with one's chance of becoming a vegetarian in adulthood.[84] In another British study, high childhood IQ was shown to inversely correlate with the chances ofsmoking.[85]
There is also a relationship between longevity and intelligence.
Social outcomes
Outside of academic research and medicine, IQ testing is often done due to its ability to predict future job performance, social pathologies, or academic achievement. Academic research has also examined these associations, as well as the effect of IQ on other social outcomes, such as income and wealth.
Many of the arguments and criticisms assume that explained variance can be calculated as the square (algebra) of the correlation coefficient. This way of calculating explained variance has been criticized as inappropriate for most social scientific work.[86] Also, as for the heritability figure, the explained variance only refers to the proportion of variation in an outcome that is explained by a factor, and not the proportion of an outcome that is explained by a factor.
Other tests
One study found a correlation of 0.82 between g (general intelligence factor) and SAT scores;[87] another has found correlation of 0.81 between g and GCSE scores.[88]
Correlations between IQ scores (general cognitive ability) and achievement test scores are reported to be 0.81 by Deary and colleagues, with the explained variance ranging "from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design".[88]
School performance
The American Psychological Association's report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" states that wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50. This means that the explained variance is 25%. Achieving good grades depends on many factors other than IQ, such as "persistence, interest in school, and willingness to study" (p. 81).[37]
Job performance
According to Frank Schmidt and John Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[89] The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6.[90] The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods were controlled for.[37] While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function,[91] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations.[89] That said, for highly qualified activities (research, management) low IQ scores are more likely to be a barrier to adequate performance, whereas for minimally-skilled activities, athletic strength (manual strength, speed, stamina, and coordination) are more likely to influence performance.[89] It is largely mediated through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that IQ predicts job performance.
In establishing a causal direction to the link between IQ and work performance, longitudinal studies by Watkins and others suggest that IQ exerts a causal influence on future academic achievement, whereas academic achievement does not substantially influence future IQ scores.[92] Treena Eileen Rohde and Lee Anne Thompson write that general cognitive ability but not specific ability scores predict academic achievement, with the exception that processing speed and spatial ability predict performance on the SAT math beyond the effect of general cognitive ability.[93]
The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs [94]
The American Psychological Association's report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" states that since the explained variance is 29%, other individual characteristics such as interpersonal skills, aspects of personality etc. are probably of equal or greater importance, but at this point there are no equally reliable instruments to measure them.[37]
Income
Some researchers 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."[95][96]
Other studies show that 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.[97] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.[98]
Taking the above two principles together, very high IQ produces very high job performance, but no greater income than slightly high IQ. Studies also show that high IQ is related to higher net worth.[99]
The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about one-fourth of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[37]
Some studies claim that IQ only accounts for (explained variance) a sixth of the variation in income because many studies are based on young adults (many of whom have not yet completed their education). On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligmancites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance).
A 2002 study[100] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an individual's location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ.
IQ and crime
The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that the correlation between IQ and crime was -0.2. It was -0.19 between IQ scores and number of juvenile offenses in a large Danish sample; with social class controlled, the correlation dropped to -0.17. A correlation of 0.20 means that the explained variance is less than 4%. It is important to realize that the causal links between psychometric ability and social outcomes may be indirect. Children with poor scholastic performance may feel alienated. Consequently, they may be more likely to engage in delinquent behavior, compared to other children who do well.[37]
In his book The g Factor (1998), Arthur Jensen cited data which showed that, regardless of race, people with IQs between 70 and 90 have higher crime rates than people with IQs below or above this range, with the peak range being between 80 and 90.
The 2009 Handbook of Crime Correlates stated that reviews have found that around eight IQ points, or 0.5 SD, separate criminals from the general population, especially for persistent serious offenders. It has been suggested that this simply reflects that "only dumb ones get caught" but there is similarly a negative relation between IQ and self-reported offending. That children with conduct disorder have lower IQ than their peers "strongly argue" against the theory.[101]
Other correlations with IQ
In addition, IQ and its correlation to health, violent crime, gross state product, and government effectiveness are the subject of a 2006 paper in the publication Intelligence. The paper breaks down IQ averages by U.S. states using the federal government's National Assessment of Educational Progress math and reading test scores as a source.[102]
The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that the correlations for most "negative outcome" variables are typically smaller than 0.20, which means that the explained variance is less than 4%.[37]
Tambs et al.[103][non-primary source needed] 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.[104] report that the inequality in education and income was predominantly due to genes, with shared environmental factors playing a subordinate role.
There are also other correlations such as those between religiosity and intelligence and fertility and intelligence.
Real-life accomplishments
Average adult IQs associated with real-life accomplishments:[5]
 MDs or PhDs 125
 College graduates 115
 1–3 years of college 105-110
 Clerical and sales workers 100-105
 High school graduates, skilled workers (e.g., electricians, cabinetmakers) 100
 1–3 years of of high school (completed 9–11 years of school) 95
 Semi-skilled workers (e.g., truck drivers, factory workers) 90-95
 Elementary school graduates (completed eighth grade) 90
 Elementary school dropouts (completed 0–7 years of school) 80-85
 Have 50/50 chance of reaching high school 75
Average IQ of various occupational groups:[5]
 Professional and technical 112
 Managers and administrators 104
 Clerical workers; sales workers; skilled workers, craftsmen, and foremen 101
 Semi-skilled workers (operatives, service workers, including private household; farmers and farm managers) 92
 Unskilled workers 87
Type of work that can be accomplished:[5]
 Adults can harvest vegetables, repair furniture 60
 Adults can do domestic work, simple carpentry 50
 Adults can mow lawns, do simple laundry 40
There is considerable variation within and overlap between these categories. People with high IQs are found at all levels of education and occupational categories. The biggest difference occurs for low IQs with only an occasional college graduate or professional scoring below 90.[5]
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 ethnic and racial groups and sexes. While there is little scholarly debate about the existence of some of these differences, theircauses remain highly controversial both within academia and in the public sphere.
Sex
Main article: Sex and intelligence
Men and women have statistically significant differences in average scores on tests of particular abilities.[105][106] Studies also illustrate consistently greater variance in the performance of men compared to that of women.[107]
IQ tests are weighted on these sex differences so there is no bias on average in favor of one sex, however the consistent difference in variance is not removed. Because the tests are defined so there is no average difference it is difficult to put any meaning on a statement that one sex has a higher intelligence than the other. However some people have made claims like this even using unbiased IQ tests. For instance, there are claims that men tend to outperform women on average by three to four IQ points based on tests of medical students where the greater variance of men's IQ can be expected to contribute to the result,[108] or where a 'correction' is made for different maturation ages.[citation needed]
Race
Main article: Race and intelligence
The 1996 Task Force investigation on Intelligence sponsored by the American Psychological Association concluded that there are significant variations in IQ across races.[37] The problem of determining the causes underlying this variation relates to the question of the contributions of "nature and nurture" to IQ. Psychologists such as Alan S. Kaufman[109] and Nathan Brody[110] and statisticians such as Bernie Devlin[111]argue that there are insufficient data to conclude that this is because of genetic influences. One of the most notable researchers arguing for a strong genetic influence on these average score differences is Arthur Jensen. In contrast, other researchers such as Richard Nisbett argues that environmental factors can explain all of the average group differences.[112]
Nations
Main article: Nations and intelligence
A number of literature reviews have found differences in average national IQs. Other studies have found many factors such economic growth, democracy, crime, fertility, or atheism to be associated with average national IQs. In particular for developing nations environmental factors such as malnutrition and diseases likely affect average national IQs.
Public policy

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2010)

Main article: Intelligence and public policy
In the United States, certain public policies and laws regarding military service,[113] [114] education, public benefits,[115] capital punishment,[116] and employment incorporate an individual's IQ into their decisions. However, in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. in 1971, for the purpose of minimizing employment practices that disparately impacted racial minorities, the U.S. Supreme Court banned the use of IQ tests in employment, except in very rare cases.[117] Internationally, certain public policies, such as improving nutrition and prohibiting neurotoxins, have as one of their goals raising, or preventing a decline in, intelligence.
A diagnosis of mental retardation is in part based on the results of IQ testing. Borderline intellectual functioning is a categorization where a person has below average cognitive ability (an IQ of 71–85), but the deficit is not as severe as mental retardation (70 or below).
Criticism and views
Relation between IQ and intelligence
See also: Intelligence
IQ is the most researched approach to intelligence and by far the most widely used in practical setting. There are critics, who do not dispute the stability of IQ test scores or the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement rather effectively. They do argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability.[1][118]
Criticism of g
Some scientists dispute IQ entirely. In The Mismeasure of Man (1996), paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould criticized IQ tests and argued that that they were used for scientific racism. He argued that g was a mathematical artifact and criticized:
…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)
Psychologist Peter Schönemann was also a persistent critic of IQ, calling it "the IQ myth". He argued that g is a flawed theory and that the high heritability estimates of IQ are based on false assumptions.[119][120]
Psychologist Arthur Jensen has rejected the criticism by Gould and also argued that even if g was replaced by a model with several intelligences this would change the situation less than expected. All tests of cognitive ability would continue to be highly correlated with one anther and there would still be a black-white gap on cognitive tests.[121] James R. Flynn, an intelligence researcher known for his criticisms of racial theories of intelligence, similarly argued that "Gould's book evades all of [Arthur] Jensen's best arguments for a genetic component in the black-white IQ gap by positing that they are dependent on the concept of g as a general intelligence factor. Therefore, Gould believes that if he can discredit g no more need be said. This is manifestly false. Jensen's arguments would bite no matter whether blacks suffered from a score deficit on one or 10 or 100 factors."[122]
Test bias
See also: Stereotype threat
The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that in the United States IQ tests as predictors of social achievement are not biased against African Americans since they predict future performance, such as school achievement, similarly to the way they predict future performance for Whites.[37]
However, IQ tests may well be biased when used in other situations. A 2005 study stated that "differential validity in prediction suggests that the WAIS-R test may contain cultural influences that reduce the validity of the WAIS-R as a measure of cognitive ability for Mexican American students,"[123] indicating a weaker positive correlation relative to sampled white students. Other recent studies have questioned the culture-fairness of IQ tests when used in South Africa.[124][125] Standard intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, are often inappropriate for children with autism; the alternative of using developmental or adaptive skills measures are relatively poor measures of intelligence in autistic children, and may have resulted in incorrect claims that a majority of children with autism are mentally retarded.[126]
Outdated methodology
A 2006 article stated that contemporary psychologic research often did not reflect substantial recent developments in psychometrics and "bears an uncanny resemblance to the psychometric state of the art as it existed in the 1950s." However, it also states that an "increasing number of psychometrically informed research papers that have been appearing in the past decade." [127]
“ Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns"
In response to the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs established a task force in 1995 to write a report on the state of intelligence research which could be used by all sides as a basis for discussion, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". The full text of the report is available through several websites.[37][128]
In this paper the representatives of the association regret that IQ-related works are frequently written with a view to their political consequences: "research findings were often assessed not so much on their merits or their scientific standing as on their supposed political implications".
The task force concluded 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 stated that individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by both genetics and environment.
The report stated that a number of biological factors, including malnutrition, exposure to toxic substances, and various prenatal and perinatal stressors, result in lowered psychometric intelligence under at least some conditions. The task force agrees that large differences do exist between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites. "The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."
The APA journal that published the statement, American Psychologist, subsequently published eleven critical responses in January 1997, several of them arguing that the report failed to examine adequately the evidence for partly-genetic explanations.
High IQ societies
Main article: High IQ society
There are social organizations, some international, which limit membership to people who have scores as high as or higher than the 98th percentile on some IQ test or equivalent. Mensa International is perhaps the most well known of these. There are other groups requiring a score above the 98th percentile.
Popular culture usage
Many websites and magazines use the term IQ to refer to technical or popular knowledge in a variety of subjects not related to intelligence, including sex,[129] poker,[130] and American football,[131] among a wide variety of other topics. These tests are generally not standardized and do not fit within the normal definition of intelligence. Modern Intelligence tests are not merely placing a test taker's score within the norm, as presumably are the thousands of alleged "IQ Tests" found on the internet, but they are also testing factors (e.g., fluid and crystallized intelligence, working memory, and the like) that were previously found to represent pure measures of intelligence using factor analysis. This claim may not be made for the hundreds of online tests marketing themselves as IQ Tests, a distinction that may be unfortunately lost upon the public taking them.
Reference charts
Main article: IQ reference chart
IQ reference charts are tables suggested by test publishers to divide intelligence ranges in various categories.
References
Notes
1. ^ a b Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association - Released August 7, 1995 — a slightly edited version was published in American Psychologist: Neisser, Ulric; Boodoo, Gwyneth; Bouchard, Thomas J., Jr.; Boykin, A. Wade; Brody, Nathan; Ceci, Stephen J.; Halpern, Diane F.; Loehlin, John C. et al. (1996)."Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns". American Psychologist 51 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77.)
2. ^ Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas J. (2009). "Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research". Current Directions in Psychological Science 18 (4): 217–220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01639.x. PMC 2899491.PMID 20625474.
3. ^ Turkheimer, Eric (spring 2008). "A Better Way to Use Twins for Developmental Research". LIFE Newsletter (Max Planck Institute for Human Development): 2–5. Retrieved 29 June 2010.
4. ^ Devlin, B.; Daniels, Michael; Roeder, Kathryn (1997). "The heritability of IQ". Nature 388 (6641): 468–71. doi:10.1038/41319.PMID 9242404.
5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w IQ Testing 101, Alan S. Kaufman, 2009, Springer Publishing Company, ISBN 0826106293 ISBN 9780826106292
6. ^ Gillham, Nicholas W. (2001). "Sir Francis Galton and the birth of eugenics". Annual Review of Genetics 35 (1): 83–101.doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.090055. PMID 11700278.
7. ^ Terman, Lewis M.; Lyman, Grace; Ordahl, George; Ordahl, Louise; Galbreath, Neva; Talbert, Wilford (1915). "The Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon scale and some results from its application to 1000 non-selected children". Journal of Educational Psychology 6 (9): 551–62.doi:10.1037/h0075455.
8. ^ Wallin, J. E. W. (1911). "The new clinical psychology and the psycho-clinicist". Journal of Educational Psychology 2 (3): 121–32.doi:10.1037/h0075544.
9. ^ Richardson, John T. E. (2003). "Howard Andrew Knox and the origins of performance testing on Ellis Island, 1912-1916". History of Psychology 6 (2): 143–70. doi:10.1037/1093-4510.6.2.143. PMID 12822554.
10. ^ Kennedy, Carrie H.; McNeil, Jeffrey A. (2006). "A history of military psychology". In Kennedy, Carrie H.; Zillmer, Eric. Military Psychology: Clinical and Operational Applications. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 1-57230-724-2.
11. ^ Katzell, Raymond A.; Austin, James T. (1992). "From then to now: The development of industrial-organizational psychology in the United States". Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (6): 803–35. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.803.
12. ^ Kevles, D. J. (1968). "Testing the Army's Intelligence: Psychologists and the Military in World War I". The Journal of American History 55 (3): 565–81. doi:10.2307/1891014. JSTOR 1891014.
13. ^ Das, J.P., Kirby, J., & Jarman, R.F. (1975). "Simultaneous and successive synthesis: An alternative model for cognitive abilities".Psychological Bulletin 82: 87–103. doi:10.1037/h0076163.
14. ^ Das, J.P. (2000). "A better look at intelligence". Current Directions in Psychological Science 11: 28–33. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00162.
15. ^ Naglieri, J.A., & Das, J.P. (2002). "Planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive cognitive processes as a model for assessment".School Psychology Review 19: 423–442.
16. ^ Lubinski, D. (2004). "Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman's (1904) '"General Intelligence," Objectively Determined and Measured'". Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 86 (1): 96–111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96.PMID 14717630.
17. ^ Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521387124.
18. ^ S.E. Embretson & S.P.Reise: Item response theory for psychologists, 2000. "...for many other psychological tests, normal distributions are achieved by normalizing procedures. For example, intelligence tests..." Found on: http://books.google.se/books?id=rYU7rsi53gQC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=%22intelligence+tests%22+normalize&source=bl&ots=ZAIQEgaa6Q&sig=q-amDaZqx7Ix6mMkvIDMnj9M9O0&hl=sv&ei=lEEJTNqSIYWMOPqLuRE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
19. ^ Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-19-852367-3. Lay summary (9 August 2010).
20. ^ Pinneau, Samuel R. (1961). Changes in Intelligence Quotient Infancy to Maturity: New Insights from the Berkeley Growth Study with Implications for the Stanford-Binet Scales and Applications to Professional Practice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21. ^ Mussen, Paul Henry (1973). Psychology: An Introduction. Lexington (MA): Heath. p. 363. ISBN 0-669-61383-7. "The I.Q. is essentially a rank; there are no true "units" of intellectual ability."
22. ^ Truch, Steve (1993). The WISC-III Companion: A Guide to Interpretation and Educational Intervention. Austin (TX): Pro-Ed. p. 35.ISBN 0890795851. "An IQ score is not an equal-interval score, as is evident in Table A.4 in the WISC-III manual."
23. ^ Bartholomew, David J. (2004). Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 50.ISBN 9780521544788. Lay summary (27 July 2010). "When we come to quantities like IQ or g, as we are presently able to measure them, we shall see later that we have an even lower level of measurement—an ordinal level. This means that the numbers we assign to individuals can only be used to rank them—the number tells us where the individual comes in the rank order and nothing else."
24. ^ Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN 0-19-852367-X. "In the jargon of psychological measurement theory, IQ is an ordinal scale, where we are simply rank-ordering people. . . . It is not even appropriate to claim that the 10-point difference between IQ scores of 110 and 100 is the same as the 10-point difference between IQs of 160 and 150"
25. ^ Naglieri, J. A.; Bornstein, B. T. (2003). "Intelligence and Achievement: Just how Correlated are they?". Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 21 (3): 244–260. doi:10.1177/073428290302100302. edit
26. ^ (IQ score table data and pupil pseudonyms adapted from description of KABC-II norming study cited in Kaufman 2009.Kaufman, Alan S.(2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. pp. 151–153. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2.
27. ^ Terman, Lewis Madison; Merrill, MaudeA. (1937). Measuring intelligence: A guide to the administration of the new revised Stanford-Binet tests of intelligence. Riverside textbooks in education. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin. p. 44.
28. ^ Anastasi, Anne; Urbina, Susana (1997). Psychological Testing (Seventh ed.). Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall. pp. 326–327. ISBN 978-0023030857. Lay summary (28 July 2010).
29. ^ Neisser U (1997). "Rising Scores on Intelligence Tests". American Scientist 85: 440–7.
30. ^ Neisser, Ulric, ed (1998). The Rising Curve: Long-Term Gains in IQ and Related Measures. APA Science Volume Series. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association. ISBN 978-1-55798-503-3.[page needed]
31. ^ a b Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-852367-3. Lay summary (9 August 2010).[page needed]
32. ^ Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect (expanded paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-0-521-74147-7. Lay summary (18 July 2010).[page needed]
33. ^ Flynn, James R. (1984). "The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978.". Psychological Bulletin 95 (1): 29–51. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.29.
34. ^ Flynn, James R. (1987). "Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.". Psychological Bulletin 101 (2): 171–91.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171.
35. ^ Zhou, Xiaobin; Grégoire, Jacques; Zhu, Jianjin (2010). "The Flynn Effect and the Wechsler Scales". In Weiss, Lawrence G.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Coalson, Diane et al.. WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives. Practical Resources for the Mental Health Professional. Alan S. Kaufman (Foreword). Amsterdam: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-375035-8. Lay summary (16 August 2010).[page needed]
36. ^ Kaufman, Alan S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. pp. 220–222. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2. Lay summary (10 August 2010).
37. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Neisser et al. (August 7, 1995). "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". Board of Scientific Affairs of theAmerican Psychological Association. Retrieved August 6, 2006.
38. ^ Kaufman, Alan S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. Chapter 8. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2. Lay summary (10 August 2010).[page needed]
39. ^ McArdle, John J.; Ferrer-Caja, Emilio; Hamagami, Fumiaki; Woodcock, Richard W. (2002). "Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span.". Developmental Psychology 38 (1): 115–42. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.115. PMID 11806695.
40. ^ International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 35, Issue 3, June 2006. See reprint of Leowontin's 1974 article "The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes" and 2006 commentaries: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/3.toc
41. ^ Brooks-Gunn, J.; Klebanov, P. K.; Duncan, G. J. (1996). "Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics". Child Development 67 (2): 396–408. doi:10.2307/1131822.JSTOR 1131822. PMID 8625720.
42. ^ Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). "Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research.". Current Directions in Psychological Science 18 (4): 217–220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01639.x. PMC 2899491.PMID 20625474.
43. ^ Sesardic, 2005. Making sense of heritability
44. ^ Gottfredson. L. S. (2007). Flynn, Ceci, and Turkheimer on race and intelligence: Opening moves. Cato Unbound, November 26.
45. ^ a b Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. (2010). "Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett ’ s Intelligence and How to Get It". The Open Psychology Journal 3: 9–35. doi:10.2174/1874350101003010009. edit
46. ^ Plomin, R.; Pedersen, N. L.; Lichtenstein, P.; McClearn, G. E. (1994). "Variability and stability in cognitive abilities are largely genetic later in life". Behavior Genetics 24 (3): 207–15. doi:10.1007/BF01067188. PMID 7945151.
47. ^ Bouchard, T.; Lykken, D.; McGue, M; Segal, N.; Tellegen, A (1990). "Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart". Science 250 (4978): 223–8. doi:10.1126/science.2218526. PMID 2218526.
48. ^ Bouchard, Thomas J. (2004). "Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits. A Survey". Current Directions in Psychological Science 13(4): 148–51. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00295.x.
49. ^ Bouchard Jr, TJ (1998). "Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities.". Human biology; an international record of research 70 (2): 257–79. PMID 9549239.
50. ^ a b Plomin, R; Asbury, K; Dunn, J (2001). "Why are children in the same family so different? Nonshared environment a decade later.".Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 46 (3): 225–33. PMID 11320676.
51. ^ (Harris 1998)
52. ^ Deary, Ian J.; Johnson, W.; Houlihan, L. M. (2009). "Genetic foundations of human intelligence". Human Genetics 126 (1): 215–232.doi:10.1007/s00439-009-0655-4. PMID 19294424. edit
53. ^ Pietropaolo, S.; Crusio, W. E. (2010). "Genes and cognition". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science: n/a-n/a.doi:10.1002/wcs.135. edit
54. ^ Dickens, William T.; Flynn, James R. (2001). "Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: The IQ paradox resolved.".Psychological Review 108 (2): 346–69. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.346. PMID 11381833.
55. ^ Dickens, William T.; Flynn, James R. (2002). "The IQ Paradox: Still Resolved". Psychological Review 109 (4).
56. ^ , pp. 2147–50, doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2492
57. ^ McMorris, Terry; Mielcarz, Gregorsz; Harris, Roger C.; Swain, Jonathan P.; Howard, Alan (2007). "Creatine Supplementation and Cognitive Performance in Elderly Individuals". Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 14 (5): 517–28. doi:10.1080/13825580600788100.PMID 17828627.
58. ^ Rawson, E; Lieberman, H; Walsh, T; Zuber, S; Harhart, J; Matthews, T (2008). "Creatine supplementation does not improve cognitive function in young adults". Physiology & Behavior 95 (1-2): 130–4. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.05.009. PMID 18579168.
59. ^ Glenn Schellenberg, E. (2004). "Music Lessons Enhance IQ". Psychological Science 15 (8): 511–4. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00711.x.PMID 15270994.
60. ^ (Klingberg, Forssberg & Westerberg 2002)
61. ^ Jaeggi, S. M.; Buschkuehl, M.; Jonides, J.; Perrig, W. J. (2008). "From the Cover: Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (19): 6829–33. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801268105. PMC 2383929.PMID 18443283.
62. ^ Sternberg, R. J. (2008). "Increasing fluid intelligence is possible after all". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (19): 6791–2. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803396105. PMC 2383939. PMID 18474863.
63. ^ Edward Reed, T (1993). "Cranial capacity: New Caucasian data and comments on Rushton's claimed Mongoloid-Caucasoid brain-size differences". Intelligence 17 (3): 423–31. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(93)90009-T.
64. ^ McDaniel, M (2005). "Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence".Intelligence 33 (4): 337–46. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.005.
65. ^ Rushton, J. Philippe; Ankney, C. Davison (2009). "Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review". International Journal of Neuroscience 119 (5): 692–732. doi:10.1080/00207450802325843. edit
66. ^ Luders, Eileen; Narr, Katherine L.; Thompson, Paul M.; Toga, Arthur W. (2009). "Neuroanatomical correlates of intelligence". Intelligence 37(2): 156–163. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.07.002. PMC 2770698. PMID 20160919. edit
67. ^ Bava, Sunita; Ballantyne, Angela O; Trauner, Doris A (2005). "Disparity of Verbal and Performance IQ Following Early Bilateral Brain Damage".Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology 18 (3): 163–70. doi:10.1097/01.wnn.0000178228.61938.3e. PMID 16175020.
68. ^ Qian M, Wang D, Watkins WE, et al. (2005). "The effects of iodine on intelligence in children: a meta-analysis of studies conducted in China".Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 14 (1): 32–42. PMID 15734706.
69. ^ Gene governs IQ boost from breastfeeding
70. ^ Caspi, A.; Williams, B.; Kim-Cohen, J.; Craig, I. W.; Milne, B. J.; Poulton, R.; Schalkwyk, L. C.; Taylor, A. et al. (2007). "Moderation of breastfeeding effects on the IQ by genetic variation in fatty acid metabolism". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (47): 18860–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704292104. PMC 2141867. PMID 17984066.
71. ^ N. W. Martin, B. Benyamin, N. K. Hansell, G. W. Montgomery, N. G. Martin, M. J. Wright and T. C. Bates. (2011). Cognitive function in adolescence: testing for interactions between breast-feeding and FADS2 polymorphisms. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50, 55-62 e4. 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.10.010
72. ^ Steer CD, Davey Smith G, Emmett PM, Hibbeln JR, Golding J (2010). Penha-Goncalves, Carlos. ed. "FADS2 polymorphisms modify the effect of breastfeeding on child IQ.". PLoS One 5 (7): e11570. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011570. PMC 2903485. PMID 20644632. "No summary available".
73. ^ Breslau, N.; Lucia, V. C.; Alvarado, G. F. (2006). "Intelligence and Other Predisposing Factors in Exposure to Trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Follow-up Study at Age 17 Years". Archives of General Psychiatry 63 (11): 1238–45. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1238.PMID 17088504.
74. ^ Zinkstok, Janneke R; De Wilde, Odette; Van Amelsvoort, Therese AMJ; Tanck, Michael W; Baas, Frank; Linszen, Don H (2007). "Association between the DTNBP1 gene and intelligence: a case-control study in young patients with schizophrenia and related disorders and unaffected siblings". Behavioral and Brain Functions 3 (1): 19. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-3-19. PMC 1864987. PMID 17445278.
75. ^ Woodberry, K. A.; Giuliano, A. J.; Seidman, L. J. (2008). "Premorbid IQ in Schizophrenia: A Meta-Analytic Review". American Journal of Psychiatry 165 (5): 579–87. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07081242. PMID 18413704.
76. ^ Sackeim, Harold; Freeman, Jon; McElhiney, Martin; Coleman, Eliza; Prudic, Joan; Devanand, D. P. (1992). "Effects of major depression on estimates of intelligence". Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 14 (2): 268–88. doi:10.1080/01688639208402828.PMID 1572949.
77. ^ Mandelli, Laura; Serretti, Alessandro; Colombo, Cristina; Florita, Marcello; Santoro, Alessia; Rossini, David; Zanardi, Raffaella; Smeraldi, Enrico (2006). "Improvement of cognitive functioning in mood disorder patients with depressive symptomatic recovery during treatment: An exploratory analysis". Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 60 (5): 598–604. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1819.2006.01564.x. PMID 16958944.
78. ^ Lawlor, D. A.; Clark, H.; Leon, D. A. (2006). "Associations Between Childhood Intelligence and Hospital Admissions for Unintentional Injuries in Adulthood: The Aberdeen Children of the 1950s Cohort Study". American Journal of Public Health 97 (2): 291–7.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.080168. PMC 1781410. PMID 17194859.
79. ^ Whalley, L. J; Deary, IJ (2001). "Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76". BMJ 322 (7290): 819.doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7290.819. PMC 30556. PMID 11290633.
80. ^ Cervilla, J; Prince, M; Joels, S; Lovestone, S; Mann, A (2004). "Premorbid cognitive testing predicts the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's disease better than and independently of APOE genotype". Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 75 (8): 1100–6.doi:10.1136/jnnp.2003.028076. PMC 1739178. PMID 15258208.
81. ^ Dorene Rentz, Brigham and Women's Hospital's Department of Neurology and Harvard Medical School. "More Sensitive Test Norms Better Predict Who Might Develop Alzheimer's Disease". Neuropsychology, published by the American Psychological Association. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
82. ^ Whalley LJ, Starr JM, Athawes R, Hunter D, Pattie A, Deary IJ (2000). "Childhood mental ability and dementia". Neurology 55 (10): 1455–9.PMID 11094097.
83. ^ Olness K (2003). "Effects on brain development leading to cognitive impairment: a worldwide epidemic". J Dev Behav Pediatr 24 (2): 120–30. PMID 12692458.
84. ^ Gale, C. R; Deary, I. J; Schoon, I.; Batty, G D.; Batty, G D. (2006). "IQ in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood: 1970 British cohort study".BMJ 334 (7587): 245. doi:10.1136/bmj.39030.675069.55. PMC 1790759. PMID 17175567.
85. ^ Taylor, Michelle D.; Hart, Carole L.; Smith, George Davey; Starr, John M.; Hole, David J.; Whalley, Lawrence J.; Wilson, Valerie.; Deary, Ian J. (2005). "Childhood IQ and social factors on smoking behaviour, lung function and smoking-related outcomes in adulthood: Linking the Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan studies". British Journal of Health Psychology 10 (3): 399–401. doi:10.1348/135910705X25075.
86. ^ Achen, Christopher H. (1990). "What Does “Explained Variance” Explain?: Reply". Political Analysis 2 (1): 173–184.doi:10.1093/pan/2.1.173. edit
87. ^ Frey, Meredith C.; Detterman, Douglas K. (2004). "Scholastic Assessment org?". Psychological Science 15 (6): 373–8. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x. PMID 15147489.
88. ^ a b Deary, I; Strand, S; Smith, P; Fernandes, C (2007). "Intelligence and educational achievement". Intelligence 35 (1): 13–21.doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.001.
89. ^ a b c Schmidt, Frank L.; Hunter, John E. (1998). "The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings". Psychological Bulletin 124 (2): 262–74. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262.
90. ^ Hunter, John E.; Hunter, Ronda F. (1984). "Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance". Psychological Bulletin 96 (1): 72–98.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72.
91. ^ Warner, Molly; Ernst, John; Townes, Brenda; Peel, John; Preston, Michael (1987). "Relationships Between IQ and Neuropsychological Measures in Neuropsychiatric Populations: Within-Laboratory and Cross-Cultural Replications Using WAIS and WAIS-R". Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 9 (5): 545–62. doi:10.1080/01688638708410768. PMID 3667899.
92. ^ Watkins, M; Lei, P; Canivez, G (2007). "Psychometric intelligence and achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis". Intelligence 35 (1): 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.04.005.
93. ^ Rohde, T; Thompson, L (2007). "Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability". Intelligence 35 (1): 83–92.doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.05.004.
94. ^ Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). 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.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers.
95. ^ Detterman and Daniel, 1989.
96. ^ Earl Hunt. "The Role of Intelligence in Modern Society (July-Aug, 1995)". American Scientist. pp. 4 (Nonlinearities in Intelligence). Archived from the original on May 21, 2006.
97. ^ Coward, W. Mark; Sackett, Paul R. (1990). "Linearity of ability-performance relationships: A reconfirmation". Journal of Applied Psychology 75(3): 297–300. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.297.
98. ^ Murray, Charles (1998) (PDF). Income Inequality and IQ. AEI Press. ISBN 0-8447-7094-9.[page needed]
99. ^ Henderson, Mark (April 25, 2007). "Brains dont make you rich IQ study finds". The Times (London). Retrieved May 5, 2010.
100. ^ Bowles, Samuel; Gintis, Herbert (2002). "The Inheritance of Inequality". Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (3): 3–30.doi:10.1257/089533002760278686.
101. ^ Handbook of Crime Correlates; Lee Ellis, Kevin M. Beaver, John Wright; 2009; Academic Press
102. ^ McDaniel, M (2006). "Estimating state IQ: Measurement challenges and preliminary correlates". Intelligence 34 (6): 607–19.doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.08.007.
103. ^ Tambs, Kristian; Sundet, Jon Martin; Magnus, Per; Berg, Kåre (1989). "Genetic and environmental contributions to the covariance between occupational status, educational attainment, and IQ: A study of twins". Behavior Genetics 19 (2): 209–22. doi:10.1007/BF01065905.PMID 2719624.
104. ^ 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[page needed]
105. ^ Jackson, D; Rushton, J (2006). "Males have greater g: Sex differences in general mental ability from 100,000 17- to 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test☆". Intelligence 34 (5): 479–86. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.03.005.
106. ^ Lynn, R; Irwing, P (2004). "Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis". Intelligence 32 (5): 481−98.doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.008.
107. ^ Deary, I; Irwing, P; Der, G; Bates, T (2007). "Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979". Intelligence 35 (5): 451–6. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.003.
108. ^ Stumpf, H; Jackson, D (1994). "Gender-related differences in cognitive abilities: Evidence from a medical school admissions testing program". Personality and Individual Differences 17 (3): 335–44. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90281-X.
109. ^ Kaufman, Alan S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2. Lay summary (10 August 2010).
110. ^ Brody, Nathan chapter=To g or Not to g—That Is the Question (2005). Wilhelm, Oliver & Engle, Randall W. (Eds.). ed. Handbook of Understanding and Measuring Intelligence. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications.
111. ^ Bernie Devlin, Stephen E. Fienberg, Daniel P. Resnick & Kathryn Roeder, ed (1997). Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to the Bell Curve. New York (NY): Springer Verlag. ISBN 0-38798234-5.[page needed]
112. ^ Nisbett, Richard E. (2009). Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. New York (NY): W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-06505-3. Lay summary (28 June 2010).[page needed]
113. ^ "RAND_TR193.pdf" (PDF).
114. ^ "MR818.ch2.pdf" (PDF).
115. ^ "Social Security Administration".
116. ^ Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect (expanded paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-0-521-74147-7. Lay summary (18 July 2010).
117. ^ Nicholas Lemann. The IQ Meritocracy. Time 100 link
118. ^ The Waning of I.Q. by David Brooks, The New York Times
119. ^ Psychometrics of Intelligence. K. Kemp-Leonard (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 3, 193-201: [1]
120. ^ Schönemann, Peter H. (1997). "On models and muddles of heritability.". Genetica 99 (2-3): 97–108. doi:10.1007/BF02259513.PMID 9463078.
121. ^ Jensen, Arthur (1982). "The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons" Contemporary Education Review 1 (2): 121- 135.
122. ^ Flynn, J. R. (1999). Evidence against Rushton: The Genetic Loading of the Wisc-R Subtests and the Causes of Between-Group IQ Differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, p. 373-93.
123. ^ Verney, S. P.; Granholm, E; Marshall, SP; Malcarne, VL; Saccuzzo, DP (2005). "Culture-Fair Cognitive Ability Assessment: Information Processing and Psychophysiological Approaches". Assessment 12 (3): 303–19. doi:10.1177/1073191105276674. PMID 16123251.
124. ^ Shuttleworth-Edwards, Ann; Kemp, Ryan; Rust, Annegret; Muirhead, Joanne; Hartman, Nigel; Radloff, Sarah (2004). "Cross-cultural Effects on IQ Test Performance: A Review and Preliminary Normative Indications on WAIS-III Test Performance". Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 26 (7): 903–20. doi:10.1080/13803390490510824. PMID 15742541.
125. ^ Cronshaw, Steven F.; Hamilton, Leah K.; Onyura, Betty R.; Winston, Andrew S. (2006). "Case for Non-Biased Intelligence Testing Against Black Africans Has Not Been Made: A Comment on Rushton, Skuy, and Bons (2004)". International Journal of Selection and Assessment 14(3): 278–87. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00346.x.
126. ^ Goldberg Edelson, M. (2006). "Are the Majority of Children With Autism Mentally Retarded?: A Systematic Evaluation of the Data". Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 21 (2): 66–83. doi:10.1177/10883576060210020301.
127. ^ Borsboom, Denny (2006). "The attack of the psychometricians". Psychometrika 71 (3): 425–40. doi:10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6.PMC 2779444. PMID 19946599.
128. ^ Neisser, Ulric; Boodoo, Gwyneth; Bouchard, Thomas J., Jr.; Boykin, A. Wade; Brody, Nathan; Ceci, Stephen J.; Halpern, Diane F.; Loehlin, John C. et al. (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns". American Psychologist 51 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77.
129. ^ "Planned Parenthood Sex IQ". Archived from the original on 2008-07-06. Retrieved 2008-08-10.
130. ^ "NL Holdem Poker IQ Test". Retrieved 2008-08-10.
131. ^ "American Football IQ". Retrieved 2008-08-10.



Emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) is an ability, skill or, in the case of the trait EI model, a self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups. Various models and definitions have been proposed of which the ability and trait EI models are the most widely accepted in the scientific literature. Criticisms have centered on whether the construct is a real intelligence and whether it has incremental validity over IQ and the Big Five personality dimensions.
History
The earliest roots of emotional intelligence can be traced to Darwin's work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and second adaptation.[1] In the 1900s, even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, E.L. Thorndike used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people.[2]
Similarly, in 1940 David Wechsler described the influence of non-intellective factors on intelligent behavior, and further argued that our models of intelligence would not be complete until we can adequately describe these factors.[1] In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences[3] introduced the idea of multiple intelligences which included both interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations). In Gardner's view, traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability.[4] Thus, even though the names given to the concept varied, there was a common belief that traditional definitions of intelligence are lacking in ability to fully explain performance outcomes.
The first use of the term "emotional intelligence" is usually attributed to Wayne Payne's doctoral thesis, A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence from 1985.[5] However, prior to this, the term "emotional intelligence" had appeared in Leuner (1966).[6] Greenspan(1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by Salovey and Mayer (1990), and Daniel Goleman (1995). The distinction between trait emotional intelligence and ability emotional intelligence was introduced in 2000.[7]
Definitions
Substantial disagreement exists regarding the definition of EI, with respect to both terminology and operationalizations. There has been much confusion about the exact meaning of this construct. The definitions are so varied, and the field is growing so rapidly, that researchers are constantly re-evaluating even their own definitions of the construct. Currently, there are three main models of EI:
 Ability EI model
 Mixed models of EI (usually subsumed under trait EI)[8][9]
 Trait EI model
Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most researchers agree that they tap different constructs.
Ability model
Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the standard criteria for a new intelligence. Following their continuing research, their initial definition of EI was revised to "The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth."
The ability-based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment.[10] The model proposes that individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest itself in certain adaptive behaviors. The model claims that EI includes four types of abilities:
1. Perceiving emotions – the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts—including the ability to identify one's own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.
2. Using emotions – the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand.
3. Understanding emotions – the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time.
4. Managing emotions – the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.
The ability EI model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and predictive validity in the workplace.[11]
Measurement of the ability model
The current measure of Mayer and Salovey's model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items.[10] Consistent with the model's claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled on ability-based IQ tests. By testing a person's abilities on each of the four branches of emotional intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score.
Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to social norms. Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individual's answers and those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an individual's answers and those provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers.[10]
Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is most unlike standard IQ tests in that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other problems, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that only a minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed emotionally "intelligent" only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and other similar problems have led cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence.
In a study by Føllesdal,[12] the MSCEIT test results of 111 business leaders were compared with how their employees described their leader. It was found that there were no correlations between a leader's test results and how he or she was rated by the employees, with regard to empathy, ability to motivate, and leader effectiveness. Føllesdal also criticized the Canadian company Multi-Health Systems, which administers the MSCEIT test. The test contains 141 questions but it was found after publishing the test that 19 of these did not give the expected answers. This has led Multi-Health Systems to remove answers to these 19 questions before scoring, but without stating this officially.
Mixed models
The model introduced by Daniel Goleman[13] focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model outlines four main EI constructs:
1. Self-awareness – the ability to read one's emotions and recognize their impact while using gut feelings to guide decisions.
2. Self-management – involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.
3. Social awareness – the ability to sense, understand, and react to others' emotions while comprehending social networks.
4. Relationship management – the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others while managing conflict.
Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI. Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be worked on and can be developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies.[14] Goleman's model of EI has been criticized in the research literature as mere "pop psychology" (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008).
Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model
Two measurement tools are based on the Goleman model:
1. The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), which was created in 1999, and the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), which was created in 2007.
2. The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which was created in 2001 and which can be taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment.[15]
Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI)
Bar-On[1] defines emotional intelligence as being concerned with effectively understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands.[16] Bar-On posits that EI develops over time and that it can be improved through training, programming, and therapy.[1] Bar-On hypothesizes that those individuals with higher than average EQs are in general more successful in meeting environmental demands and pressures. He also notes that a deficiency in EI can mean a lack of success and the existence of emotional problems. Problems in coping with one's environment are thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common among those individuals lacking in the subscales of reality testing, problem solving, stress tolerance, and impulse control. In general, Bar-On considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute equally to a person's general intelligence, which then offers an indication of one's potential to succeed in life.[1] However, doubts have been expressed about this model in the research literature (in particular about the validity of self-report as an index of emotional intelligence) and in scientific settings it is being replaced by the trait emotional intelligence (trait EI) model discussed below.[8]
Measurement of the ESI model
The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), is a self-report measure of EI developed as a measure of emotionally and socially competent behavior that provides an estimate of one's emotional and social intelligence. The EQ-i is not meant to measure personality traits or cognitive capacity, but rather the mental ability to be successful in dealing with environmental demands and pressures.[1] One hundred and thirty three items (questions or factors) are used to obtain a Total EQ (Total Emotional Quotient) and to produce five composite scale scores, corresponding to the five main components of the Bar-On model. A limitation of this model is that it claims to measure some kind of ability through self-report items (for a discussion, see Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2001). The EQ-i has been found to be highly susceptible to faking (Day & Carroll, 2008; Grubb & McDaniel, 2007).
Trait EI model
Petrides and colleagues[17] (see also Petrides, 2009) proposed a conceptual distinction between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI.[7] Trait EI is "a constellation of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality". In lay terms, trait EI refers to an individual's self-perceptions of their emotional abilities. This definition of EI encompasses behavioral dispositions and self perceived abilities and is measured by self report, as opposed to the ability based model which refers to actual abilities, which have proven highly resistant to scientific measurement. Trait EI should be investigated within a personality framework.[18] An alternative label for the same construct is trait emotional self-efficacy.
The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman and Bar-On models discussed above. The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as much as it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and hypotheses that are formulated about it.[7]
Measurement of the trait EI model
There are many self-report measures of EI,[19] including the EQ-i, the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), and the Schutte EI model. None of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional intelligence.[17] One of the more comprehensive and widely researched measures of this construct is the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue), which was specifically designed to measure the construct comprehensively and is available in many languages.
The TEIQue provides an operationalization for the model of Petrides and colleagues, that conceptualizes EI in terms of personality.[20] The test encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors: Well-Being, Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability. The psychometricproperties of the TEIQue were investigated in a study on a French-speaking population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally normally distributed and reliable.[21]
The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning (Raven's matrices), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view of EI (as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were positively related to some of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) as well as inversely related to others (alexithymia,neuroticism). A number of quantitative genetic studies have been carried out within the trait EI model, which have revealed significant genetic effects and heritabilities for all trait EI scores.[22]
Two recent studies (one a meta-analysis) involving direct comparisons of multiple EI tests yielded very favorable results for the TEIQue [9][23]
Alexithymia and EI
Alexithymia from the Greek words "λέξις" (lexis) and "θυμός" (thumos) (literally "lack of words for emotions") is a term coined by Peter Sifneos in 1973[24][25] to describe people who appeared to have deficiencies in understanding, processing, or describing their emotions. Viewed as a spectrum between high and low EI, the alexithymia construct is strongly inversely related to EI, representing its lower range.[26]The individual's level of alexithymia can be measured with self-scored questionnaires such as the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) or the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ)[27] or by observer rated measures such as the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS).
Criticisms of the theoretical foundation of EI
EI cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence
Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is a type of intelligence. Eysenck (2000)[28] writes that Goleman's description of EI contains unsubstantiated assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what researchers have come to expect when studying types of intelligence:
"[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."
Similarly, Locke (2005)[29] claims that the concept of EI is in itself a misinterpretation of the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligence—the ability to grasp abstractions—applied to a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-labeled and referred to as a skill.
The essence of this criticism is that scientific inquiry depends on valid and consistent construct utilization, and that before the introduction of the term EI, psychologists had established theoretical distinctions between factors such as abilities and achievements, skills and habits, attitudes and values, and personality traits and emotional states.[30] Thus, some scholars believe that the term EI merges and conflates such accepted concepts and definitions.
EI has little predictive value
Landy (2005)[31] claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted on EI have shown that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of some common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy suggested that the reason why some studies have found a small increase in predictive validity is a methodological fallacy, namely, that alternative explanations have not been completely considered:
"EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract intelligence but not with a personality measure, or with a personality measure but not with a measure of academic intelligence." Landy (2005)
Similarly, other researchers have raised concerns about the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions. Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure personality traits.[17] Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI –neuroticism and extroversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety. Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures.
The interpretations of the correlations between EI questionnaires and personality have been varied. The prominent view in the scientific literature is the Trait EI view, which re-interprets EI as a collection of personality traits.[32][33][34]
Criticisms of measurement issues
Ability EI measures measure conformity, not ability
One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by Roberts et al. (2001),[35] which suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus-based assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively distributed (meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better than people with high EI).
Ability EI measures measure knowledge (not actual ability)
Further criticism has been offered by Brody (2004),[36] who claimed that unlike tests of cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not necessarily the ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that is assessed". The main argument is that even though someone knows how he should behave in an emotionally laden situation, it doesn't necessarily follow that he could actually carry out the reported behavior.
Ability EI measures measure personality and general intelligence
New research is surfacing that suggests that ability EI measures might be measuring personality in addition to general intelligence. These studies examined the multivariate effects of personality and intelligence on EI and also corrected estimates for measurement error (which is often not done in some validation studies). For example, a study by Schulte, Ree, Carretta (2004),[37] showed that general intelligence (measured with the Wonderlic Personnel Test), agreeableness (measured by the NEO-PI), as well as gender had a multiple R of .81 with the MSCEIT. This result has been replicated by Fiori and Antonakis (2011),;[38] they found a multiple R of .76 using Cattell’s “Culture Fair” intelligence test and the Big Five Inventory (BFI); significant covariates were intelligence (standardized beta = .39), agreeableness (standardized beta = .54), and openness (standardized beta = .46). Antonakis and Dietz (2011a),[39] who investigated the Ability Emotional Intelligence Measure found similar results (Multiple R = .69), with significant predictors being intelligence, standardized beta = .69 (using the Swaps Test and a Wechsler scales subtest, the 40-item General Knowledge Task) and empathy, standardized beta = .26 (using the Questionnaire Measure of Empathic Tendency)--see also Antonakis and Dietz (2011b),[40] who show how including or excluding important controls variables can fundamentally change results—thus, it is important to always include important controls like personality and intelligence when examining the predictive validity of ability and trait EI models.
Self-report measures are susceptible to faking
More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), faking good is defined as a response pattern in which 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), acting as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Gangster 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 some self-report EI inventories are used in (e.g., employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001).
There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behavior inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). Some inventories use validity scales in order to determine the likelihood or consistency of the responses across all items.
Claims for the predictive power of EI are too extreme
Landy[31] distinguishes between the "commercial wing" and "the academic wing" of the EI movement, basing this distinction on the alleged predictive power of EI as seen by the two currents. According to Landy, the former makes expansive claims on the applied value of EI, while the latter is trying to warn users against these claims. As an example, Goleman (1998) asserts that "the most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence. ...emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership". In contrast, Mayer (1999) cautions "the popular literature's implication—that highly emotionally intelligent people possess an unqualified advantage in life—appears overly enthusiastic at present and unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific standards." Landy further reinforces this argument by noting that the data upon which these claims are based are held in "proprietary databases", which means they are unavailable to independent researchers for reanalysis, replication, or verification.[31] Thus, the credibility of the findings cannot be substantiated in a scientific way, unless those datasets are made public and available for independent analysis.
In an academic exchange, Antonakis and Ashkanasy/Dasborough mostly agreed that researchers testing whether EI matters for leadership have not done so using robust research designs; therefore, currently there is no strong evidence showing that EI predicts leadership outcomes when accounting for personality and IQ.[41] Antonakis argued that EI might not be needed for leadership effectiveness (he referred to this as the "curse of emotion" phenomenon, because leaders who are too sensitive to their and others' emotional states might have difficult to take decisions that would result in emotional labor for the leader or followers). A recently-published meta-analysis seems to support the Antonakis position: In fact, Harms and Credé found that overall (and using data free from problems of common source and common methods), EI measures correlated only r = .11 with measures of transformational leadership.[42] Interestingly, ability-measures of EI fared worst (i.e., r = .04); the WLEIS (Wong-Law measure) did a bit better (r = .08), and the Bar-On measure better still (r = .18). However, the validity of these estimates does not include the effects of IQ or the big five personality, which correlate both with EI measures and leadership.[43] In a subsequent paper analyzing the impact of EI on both job performance and leadership, Harms and Credé[44] found that the meta-analytic validity estimates for EI dropped to zero when Big Five traits and IQ were controlled for.
EI, IQ and job performance
Research of EI and job performance show mixed results: a positive relation has been found in some of the studies, in others there was no relation or an inconsistent one. This led researchers Cote and Miners (2006)[45] to offer a compensatory model between EI and IQ, that posits that the association between EI and job performance becomes more positive as cognitive intelligence decreases, an idea first proposed in the context of academic performance (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The results of the former study supported the compensatory model: employees with low IQ get higher task performance and organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization, the higher their EI.
Notes and references
1. ^ a b c d e f Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18 , supl., 13-25.
2. ^ Thorndike, R.K. (1920). "Intelligence and Its Uses", Harper's Magazine 140, 227-335.
3. ^ Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
4. ^ Smith, M.K. (2002) "Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences", The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, downloaded fromhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm on October 31, 2005.
5. ^ Payne, W.L. (1983/1986). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence; self integration; relating to fear, pain and desire. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, p. 203A (University microfilms No. AAC 8605928)
6. ^ Leuner, B. (1966). Emotional intelligence and emancipation. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 15, 193-203.
7. ^ a b c Petrides, K.V. & Furnham, A. (2000a). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320
8. ^ a b Kluemper, D.H. (2008) Trait emotional intelligence: The impact of core-self evaluations and social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(6), 1402-1412.
9. ^ a b Martins, A.; Ramalho, N.; Morin, E. (2010). "A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health".Journal of Personality and Individual Differences 49: 554–564. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029.
10. ^ a b c Salovey P and Grewal D (2005) The Science of Emotional Intelligence. Current directions in psychological science, Volume 14 -6
11. ^ Bradberry, T. and Su, L. (2003). Ability-versus skill-based assessment of emotional intelligence, Psicothema, Vol. 18, supl., pp. 59-66.
12. ^ http://www.psykologi.uio.no/studier/drpsych/disputaser/follesdal_summary.html Hallvard Føllesdal - 'Emotional Intelligence as Ability: Assessing the Construct Validity of Scores from the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)' PhD Thesis and accompanying papers, University of Oslo 2008
13. ^ Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books
14. ^ Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (eds.): Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 343-362). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. ^ Bradberry, Travis and Greaves, Jean. (2009). Emotional Intelligence 2.0. San Francisco: Publishers Group West. ISBN 9780974320625
16. ^ Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): a test of emotional intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
17. ^ a b c Petrides, K.V., Pita, R., Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273-289.
18. ^ Petrides, K.V. & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448
19. ^ Pérez, J.C., Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. (2005). Measuring trait emotional intelligence. In R. Schulze and R.D. Roberts (Eds.), International Handbook of Emotional Intelligence (pp.181-201). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.
20. ^ Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–75
21. ^ Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy, and Roy (2007). Psychometric Properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: Factor Structure, Reliability, Construct, and Incremental Validity in a French-Speaking Population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(3), 338–353
22. ^ Vernon, P.A.; Petrides, K.V.; Bratko, D.; Schermer, J.A. (2008). "A behavioral genetic study of trait emotional intelligence". Emotion 8 (5): 635–642. doi:10.1037/a0013439. PMID 18837613.
23. ^ Gardner, J. K.; Qualter, P. (2010). "Concurrent and incremental validity of three trait emotional intelligence measures". Australian Journal of Psychology 62: 5–12. doi:10.1080/00049530903312857.
24. ^ Bar-On, Reuven; Parker, James DA (2000). The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0787949841. pp. 40-59
25. ^ Taylor, Graeme J; Bagby, R. Michael and Parker, James DA (1997). Disorders of Affect Regulation: Alexithymia in Medical and Psychiatric Illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. ISBN 052145610X. pp. 28-31
26. ^ Parker, JDA; Taylor, GJ; Bagby, RM (2001). "The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Alexithymia". Personality and Individual Differences 30: 107–115. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00014-3.
27. ^ Vorst, HCM; Bermond, B (2001). "Validity and reliability of the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire". Personality and Individual Differences 30 (3): 413–434. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00033-7.
28. ^ Eysenck, H.J. (2000). Intelligence: A New Look. ISBN 0765807076
29. ^ Locke, E.A. (2005). "Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept". Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 425–431.doi:10.1002/job.318.
30. ^ Mattiuzzi, P.G. Emotional Intelligence? I'm not feeling it. everydaypsychology.com
31. ^ a b c Landy, F.J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411-424.
32. ^ Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy, E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 338-353.
33. ^ Smith, L., Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C. L., (2008). The stability and change of trait emotional intelligence, conflict communication patterns, and relationship satisfaction: A one-year longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 738-743.
34. ^ Austin, E.J. (2008). A reaction time study of responses to trait and ability emotional intelligence test items. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1855-1864.
35. ^ Roberts, R.D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196–231
36. ^ Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 234-238.
37. ^ Schulte, M. J., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Not much more than g and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1059–1068, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.014
38. ^ Fiori, M., & Antonakis, J. (2011). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Searching for valid measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 329-334, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.010
39. ^ Antonakis, J., & Dietz, J. (2011a). Looking for Validity or Testing It? The Perils of Stepwise Regression, Extreme-Scores Analysis, Heteroscedasticity, and Measurement Error. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 409-415,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.014
40. ^ Antonakis, J., & Dietz, J. (2011b). More on Testing for Validity Instead of Looking for It. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 418-421,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.008
41. ^ Antonakis, J.; Ashkanasy, N. M.; Dasborough, M. (2009). "Does leadership need emotional intelligence?". The Leadership Quarterly 20: 247–261. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006.
42. ^ Harms, P. D.; Credé, M. (2010). "Emotional Intelligence and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis". Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17 (1): 5–17. doi:10.1177/1548051809350894.
43. ^ Antonakis, J. (2009). “Emotional intelligence”: What does it measure and does it matter for leadership?. In G. B. Graen (Ed). LMX leadership--Game-Changing Designs: Research-Based Tools (Vol. VII) (pp. 163-192). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Download article: [1], link to book: http://www.infoagepub.com/products/Predators-Game-Changing-Designs
44. ^ Harms, P. D.; Credé, M. (2010). "Remaining Issues in Emotional Intelligence Research: Construct Overlap, Method Artifacts, and Lack of Incremental Validity". Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice 3 (2): 154–158. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01217.x.
45. ^ Cote, S. and Miners, C.T.H. (2006). "Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence and job performance", Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), pp1-28.