Intelligence最新文献

In an aging society, it is crucial to understand why some people live long and others do not. There has been a proliferation of studies in recent years that highlight the importance of psycho-behavioural factors in the ways of aging, one of those psychological components is intelligence. In this meta-analysis, the association between intelligence and life expectancy in late adulthood is analysed through the Hazard Ratio (HR). Our objectives are: (i) to update Calvin's meta-analysis, especially the estimate of the association between survival and intelligence; and (ii) to evaluate the role of some moderators, especially the age of the participants, to explore intelligence–mortality throughout adulthood and old age. The results show a positive relationship between intelligence and survival (HR_•: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.81–0.76). This association is significantly moderated by the years of follow-up, the effect size being smaller the more years elapse between the intelligence assessment and the recording of the outcome. Intelligence is a protective factor to reach middle-high age, but from then on survival depends less and less on intelligence and more on other factors.

This study is aimed at investigating the contribution of the general intelligence factor if six PISA domains (reading, mathematical, scientific, financial literacies, global competence, and creative thinking) are combined in one measurement instrument. For achieving our goal, items based on the PISA frameworks are developed, students in grades 5–8 from three different Russian regions are assessed, and three IRT models (unidimensional, multidimensional, and bifactor) are applied to process the data. In addition, the correlations from the multidimensional model are estimated to examine the degree of cognitive specificity and mixture modeling is implemented to investigate ability differentiation across grades. Statistical analysis reveals that the bifactor model comprising one general and six specific factors, has a better fit in each grade. Based on this model, we compute the variance explained by the general factor, with the estimates varying between 60% and 70%. In general, the pure variance explained by specific factors does not exceed 10%. The correlations are above 0.40 in each grade and the averaged associations tend to increase from 6th to 8th grade, although they are smaller in years 6 and 7 compared to year 5. The general ability differentiation effect is observed in grades 6 to 8 and is not present in grade 5. Specific ability differentiation is more pronounced in reading literacy, especially in grade 5 to 7. The results obtained are discussed from the perspective of the ability and developmental differentiation/dedifferentiation problem.

Ability tilt refers to a within-individual difference between two abilities, e.g. a difference between math and verbal ability. Coyle and colleagues have demonstrated correlations between ability tilts and measures of the constituent abilities. We have previously pointed out that such measures may be spurious as the tilt variable is dependent on the constituent abilities. We have further shown that reported tilt associations are inconsistent with simulations including non-spurious tilt-effects, and concluded that tilt-correlations demonstrated by Coyle and colleagues are spurious. In a recent paper, Coyle responded with a series of arguments, including that the validity of tilt correlations is supported by their agreement with theoretical predictions, and that the analyses we used in our previous critique (regression effects) differ from tilt-correlations. Here, we advance the discussion by responding to the arguments put forward by Coyle. We show that the difference between regression effects and correlations is not material to the validity of our argument. Furthermore, we discuss the relation of tilt correlations to theory, and show that many empirical tilt-correlations, e.g. between the birth rate – death rate difference and fertility in US states, can be observed although such correlations can hardly be explained by differential investment theories. Therefore, we maintain that tilt correlations are spurious and that they offer little support for theories concerning the development of intelligence.

Some children may be intellectually gifted, and yet experience behavioral and academic difficulties. We examined 82 twice exceptional children (2e-ADHD), having an excellent General Ability Index (GAI) derived from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV (GAI ≥ 125), and a diagnosis of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). They accounted for 8.8% of a large sample of children with ADHD, which is twice as high as the proportion of intellectually gifted children in a typical population. This over-representation does not reflect a misdiagnosis of ADHD, as these children showed the typical features predicted on the grounds of data regarding the ADHD sample, including lower scores in working memory and processing speed measures, combined with the inclusion criteria for giftedness. Based on information concerning intellectually gifted children with either a Specific Learning Disorder (SLD) or typical development, we observed that these characteristics of intelligence are similar to those seen in SLD, but not in typical development, irrespective of whether 2e-ADHD children had a comorbid SLD.

Mental abilities and physical growth are important determinants of health across the lifespan. Here, the stability of these traits was assessed from 6 months to 65 years of age to investigate periods of stability and malleability. Mental abilities, height, and weight were assessed at 11 time-points in participants of the Zurich Longitudinal Studies. Individuals with more than three missing data points per trait across the 11 assessment time-points (i.e., more than approx. 25% missing data) were excluded from further analyses (final N = 281). Bivariate cross-time correlations showed that the stability of mental abilities was low in infancy and gradually increased. The stability of growth measures was uniform across development, with height being highly stable and weight moderately so. When a latent model was used, the overall stability of mental abilities approached that of weight. The findings indicate that stability and malleability across development differ between mental abilities and growth measures. This requires consideration in interventions targeting these traits as facilitators for improving health outcomes.

The issue of cultural differences in how the concept of intelligence is understood has long been debated. But do such differences really exist and, if so, to what extent do they exist and between which cultures are they the most pronounced? To better understand this, we translated a survey from Warne and Burton (2020) on beliefs about intelligence into Arabic, distributed it among psychology and non-psychology students and lecturers at universities within the Arab world, and compared our results with those from the US given by Warne and Burton, and with the current state of research. The survey consisted of 83 items about theories regarding the meaning and testing of intelligence. From our sample of up to 327 Arabic-speaking participants, we found that replies are overall similar to those from the US (r = .59; N_items = 63), while both samples showed hardly any congruence with the current state of research. Agreements between the Arab and US-sample are mostly to be found on questions in which abilities are seen as important components of intelligence, while Arabs question the predictive validity of IQ test scores for life success much more than do their Western counterparts. Based on our results, we conclude that there is little evidence for the existence of cultural bias in points of view about intelligence research and that the concept of cultural non-transferability – or “cultural bias” – must be examined more critically.

The primary criticism raised by Hiller (2023) pertained to the transformation of the self-assessed intelligence (SAI) scores applied by Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020), an investigation that suggested the Dunning-Kruger effect (DKE) may be primarily a statistical artefact. Hiller recommended an alternative transformation. Our re-analysis of Gignac and Zajenkowski's data with Hiller's recommended transformation failed to find evidence in favour of the DK hypothesis. Hiller also recommended SAI measurement with a percentile-based approach. Based on a review of the literature, one investigation has employed a percentile-based approach to SAI measurement, and it largely failed to support the DK hypothesis, when analysed with the non-linear regression approach recommended by Gignac and Zajenkowski. We conclude by encouraging researchers to continue to derive novel approaches to testing the DK hypothesis, especially approaches that overcome known methodological challenges.

Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020) find that “the degree to which people mispredicted their objectively measured intelligence was equal across the whole spectrum of objectively measured intelligence”. This Comment shows that Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020) finding of homoscedasticity is likely the result of a recoding choice by the experimenters and does not in fact indicate that the Dunning-Kruger Effect is a mere statistical artifact. Specifically, Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020) recoded test subjects' responses to a question regarding self-assessed comparative IQ onto a linear IQ scale when a normal IQ scale would likely have been more appropriate. More generally, researchers studying self-assessed intelligence should be aware of potential measurement problems that may arise when transforming an ordinal scale onto an interval scale.