Search

Cognitive ability stimulates economic productivity. However, the effects of cognitive ability may be stronger in free and open economies, where competition rewards merit and achievement. To test this hypothesis, ability levels of intellectual classes (top 5%) and average classes (country averages) were estimated using international student assessments (Programme for International Student Assessment; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study; and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) (N = 99 countries). The ability levels were correlated with indicators of economic freedom (Fraser Institute), scientific achievement (patent rates), innovation (Global Innovation Index), competitiveness (Global Competitiveness Index), and wealth (gross domestic product). Ability levels of intellectual and average classes strongly predicted all economic criteria. In addition, economic freedom moderated the effects of cognitive ability (for both classes), with stronger effects at higher levels of freedom. Effects were particularly robust for scientific achievements when the full range of freedom was analyzed. The results support cognitive capitalism theory: cognitive ability stimulates economic productivity, and its effects are enhanced by economic freedom., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

In the research reported here, we examined whether processing speed mediates the development of general intelligence (g) in adolescence. Using the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a battery of 12 diverse cognitive tests, we assessed processing speed and g in a large sample of 13- to 17-year-olds obtained from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (N = 6,969). The direct effect of age on g was small compared with the total effect of age on g, which was almost fully mediated through speed. The results suggest that increases in g in adolescence can be attributed to increases in mental speed.

This research examined whether non-"g" residuals of the SAT and ACT subtests, obtained after removing g, predicted specific abilities. Non-"g" residuals of the verbal and math subtests of the SAT and ACT were correlated with academic (verbal and math) and non-academic abilities (speed and shop), both based on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Non-"g" residuals of the SAT and ACT math subtests were positively related to math ability and negatively to verbal ability, whereas the opposite pattern was found for the verbal subtests. Non-"g" residuals of both sets of subtests were weakly related to non-academic abilities. The results support an investment theory of skills and abilities: Investing in skills in one area (e.g., math) improves abilities in that area but lowers abilities in competing areas (e.g., verbal). (Contains 2 tables and 1 figure.)

This research examined whether the SAT and ACT would predict college grade point average (GPA) after removing g from the tests. SAT and ACT scores and freshman GPAs were obtained from a university sample (N=161) and the 1997 National Longitudinal Study of Youth (N=8984). Structural equation modeling was used to examine relationships among g, GPA, and the SAT and ACT. The g factor was estimated from commercial cognitive tests (e.g., Wonderlic and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) and the computer-adaptive Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. The unique variances of the SAT and ACT, obtained after removing g, were used to predict GPA. Results from both samples converged: While the SAT and ACT were highly g loaded, both tests generally predicted GPA after removing g. These results suggest that the SAT and ACT are strongly related to g, which is related to IQ and intelligence tests. They also suggest that the SAT and ACT predict GPA from non-g factors. Further research is needed to identify the non-g factors that contribute to the predictive validity of the SAT and ACT. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.)

Examined whether the Worst Performance rule (G. Larson and D. Alderton, 1990) could be applied to a strategic memory task in which 81 children in grades 2 through 4 were asked to remember different lists of categorizable words. Results show strong support for the rule, with worst performance predicting more unique variance in IQ than any other variable. (SLD)

The aim of this paper is to provide a parsimonious account of developmental and individual differences in intelligence (measured as g). The paper proposes a Differential--Developmental Model (DDM), which focuses on factors common to intelligence and cognitive development (e.g., mental speed and attention lapses). It also proposes a complementary method based on Jensen's box, a chronometric device. The device systematically varies task complexity, and separates two components of mental speed that differentially predict intelligence and cognitive development (reaction time and movement time). The paper reviews key assumptions of DDM, preliminary findings relevant to DDM, and future research on DDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why are some governments more effective managers of resources – people, places and finances – and others less effective? This question is at the center of understanding political and economic development. Yet, established theory that explains how individual cognitive differences and sociological forces mutually explain government effectiveness is lacking. To bridge this knowledge gap we articulate the Functional Intelligences Proposition (FIP): The individual level attributes of general intelligence and social intelligence serve unique information processing functions and have a positive and independent effect on the ability of individuals, acting in concert, to govern resources. To begin to evaluate the FIP, we study the effects of general intelligence, social intelligence and social infrastructure (prosocial norms & trust) on how effectively US states govern. We find that measures of general intelligence (estimated by IQ) and social intelligence (social-cognitive theory of mind – ToM – estimated by agreeableness) have a positive and independent effect on the effectiveness of governance. The FIP provides an interdisciplinary explanation for the effectiveness of governance and, ultimately, development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This research examined whether the SAT and ACT would predict college grade point average (GPA) after removing g from the tests. SAT and ACT scores and freshman GPAs were obtained from a university sample (N =161) and the 1997 National Longitudinal Study of Youth (N =8984). Structural equation modeling was used to examine relationships among g, GPA, and the SAT and ACT. The g factor was estimated from commercial cognitive tests (e.g., Wonderlic and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) and the computer-adaptive Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. The unique variances of the SAT and ACT, obtained after removing g, were used to predict GPA. Results from both samples converged: While the SAT and ACT were highly g loaded, both tests generally predicted GPA after removing g. These results suggest that the SAT and ACT are strongly related to g, which is related to IQ and intelligence tests. They also suggest that the SAT and ACT predict GPA from non-g factors. Further research is needed to identify the non-g factors that contribute to the predictive validity of the SAT and ACT. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Experts on intelligence, cognitive ability and student achievement were surveyed for their opinions on the causes of the 20th century rise in intelligence test results called the “FLynn effect”, on the causes of a possible end of the FLynn effect and on the future development of IQ in different world regions. Ratings from N = 75 experts attributed the secular IQ rise to better health and nutrition, more and better education and rising standards of living. Genetic changes were seen as not important. A possible stagnation or retrograde of the FLynn effect was attributed to asymmetric fertility (genetic and socialization effects), migration, declines in education and the influence of media. Experts expected 21st century IQ increases in currently on average low-ability regions (+ 6 to + 7 IQ points, in Latin America, Africa, India) and in East Asia (+ 7 IQ), but not in the West (a stagnation, below + 1 IQ), with a small decline in the US (− 0.45 IQ). Similar results were obtained for all experts and experts on the FLynn effect itself (mean r = 0.90 to 0.97; N = 17). The results correlated strongly with and confirmed a recent meta-analysis on the causes of the FLynn effect ( r = 0.65 to 0.71; Pietschnig & Voracek, 2015). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experts (N max = 102 answering) on intelligence completed a survey about IQ research, controversies, and the media. The survey was conducted in 2013 and 2014 using the Internet-based Expert Questionnaire on Cognitive Ability (EQCA). In the current study, we examined the background of the experts (e.g., nationality, gender, religion, and political orientation) and their positions on intelligence research, controversial issues, and the media. Most experts were male (83%) and from Western countries (90%). Political affiliations ranged from the left (liberal, 54%) to the right (conservative, 24%), with more extreme responses within the left-liberal spectrum. Experts rated the media and public debates as far below adequate. Experts with a left (liberal, progressive) political orientation were more likely to have positive views of the media (around r = |.30|). In contrast, compared to female and left (liberal) experts, male and right (conservative) experts were more likely to endorse the validity of IQ testing (correlations with gender, politics: r =.55,.41), the g factor theory of intelligence (r =.18,.34), and the impact of genes on US Black-White differences (r =.50,.48). The paper compares the results to those of prior expert surveys and discusses the role of experts' backgrounds, with a focus on political orientation and gender. An underrepresentation of viewpoints associated with experts' background characteristics (i.e., political views, gender) may distort research findings and should be addressed in higher education policy. • The survey reports answers for up to 102 intelligence experts on 38 questions. • Questions examined background factors, IQ testing, and perceptions of the media. • Most respondents supported g factor theory. • Experts were skeptical of the accuracy and trustworthiness of the media. • Political perspective and gender correlated with experts' answers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]