Comments about a chameleon theory: Level I/Level II.

Contends that A. R. Jensen's (see record 1983-09647-001) ideas about 2 levels of intellectual abilities are oversimplified. There are more than 2 levels of intellectual abilities. Slope values for the relationships between variables can reflect more than merely racial and socioeconomic status differences. Jensen has changed his 2-level theory to accommodate the criticisms. Unfortunately, this indicates weakness in the original theory and in the revised theory, for the changes in the theory make it virtually indistinguishable from the empirical generalizations it was designed to help explain. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Interpretation of Heritability: A Rejoinder.

Replies to comments by A. R. Jensen (see record 1990-57013-001) on comments by the original author (see record 1990-56938-001) to a discussion about role of heredity and environment in behavior development by D. O. Hebb (1970; 1971) and A. R. Jensen (1971). The author clarifies 3 specific points. First, that it was not the statistical procedures but the empirical data to which they were applied that led the author to question Jensen's original conclusions. Second, that the probabilistic argument, to which Jensen's present comment addresses itself in large part, is of primary interest when no other information is available regarding the origins of particular differences between individuals or group. Finally, that the sort of environmental interventions generally considered in relation to minority group status do not represent simply a reshuffling of environmental variations already existing within such groups (or within other groups). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Carelessness or fraud in Sir Cyril Burt's kinship data? A critique of Jensen's analysis.

Examines A. R. Jensen's (see record 1974-24594-001) arguments that the anomalies in C. Burt's kinship data are due to carelessness. A look at the error pattern suggests that it is not easily interpreted as carelessness and an analysis of digital preferences, in those of Burt's figures that Jensen reports, points more to invention than to genuine derivation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement": Addendum.

Responds to the critique by the Council for the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (see record 1990-56779-001) of A. R. Jensen's article (see record 1969-09740-001) concerning the influence of heredity vs environment on IQ and scholastic achievement and suggests that the critique draws attention to Jensen's use of a social definition of race for the population tested for IQ. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On "Sir Cyril Burt in perspective."

Responds to A. R. Jensen's (see record 1979-12278-001) criticism of M. McAskie's (see record 1979-12282-001) article on the interpretation of C. Burt's kinship data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Level I/Level II: Factors or categories?

An explanation is sought for the striking apparent failure of the interactions of intelligence and memory factors with socioeconomic status, predicted by A. R. Jensen's (see record 1974-24027-001) Level I/Level II theory, in a study by L. Stankov et al (see record 1981-02648-001). It is suggested that Level I ability may not be a higher-order factor, like Spearman's g or Level II, but rather a category of narrower abilities involving rote learning and primary memory, with little transformation between input and output. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Republican Party and Santa Claus.

I would like to congratulate Dworkin (see record 1990-57116-001) on his cogent analysis of the shift of views by Jensen (see record 1968-08786-001). The level of criticism aimed at Jensen has unfortunately sunk to personal attacks on the man and not at the research itself. I would like to think that such thinly veiled cheap shots at the integrity of a researcher by impugning his motives has no place in psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

By design or carelessness?

Comments on the ongoing debate between A. R. Jensen (see record 1979-12278-001) and M. McAskie (see record 1979-12282-001) on the interpretation of C. Burt's kinship data by pointing out instances of carelessness that have occurred in the debate. Jensen argued that Burt's original published data were due to carelessness and not fraud. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Two views on IQs.

Compares the views of "Professor Hyde" (actually, A. Jensen) on the nature of intelligence as presented in a little-known 1967 article (see record 1968-08786-001) in Educational Research with those of Jensen as presented in his well-known Harvard Educational Review article in 1969. The differences in the articles are attributed to changes in the social and political climate between 1967 and 1969. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Race differences on nonverbal analogy test performance as a function of verbal strategy training.

Hypothesized that the relatively poor performance of Black students on nominally nonverbal reasoning tests (A. R. Jensen's Level II) (see record 1974-24027-001) may be due to their failure to use verbal problem-solving strategies efficiently and spontaneously. 200 4th and 5th graders, both Black and White, showed no race differences on Level I ability (digit-span memory). Half of the Ss of each race were then trained to use a verbal strategy on nonverbal analogies. For Ss who received no special training there were significant race differences on the analogies test (p     

Correlation between genetically matched groups versus reliability theory: A reply to Jensen.

Argues that A. Jensen's (see record 1971-09170-001) proposal for interpreting phenotypes as direct proportional measures of phenotype variance attributable to trait heritability would lead to an overestimation of variance attributable to genetic factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Simultaneous and successive processing: An attempt at replication.

J. P. Das et al (see record 1975-08765-001) claim that A. R. Luria's (1966) distinction between simultaneous and successive modes of information processing provides a more fruitful way of classifying cognitive processes than (a) the hierarchical models of C. Burt (see record 1973-10531-001) and P. E. Vernon (see record 1963-03855-001), A. R. Jensen's (see record 1969-09740-001) Levels 1 and 2, or A. Paivio's (see record 1976-01839-001) dual coding system of imagery and verbal mediation. Their published factor analyses are surveyed, and shown to yield only partial support for their views. A broader battery of 14 tests was given to 91 university students, and responses were factor analyzed. Two of the obtained factors involved various kinds of rote memorizing, and thus could be regarded as successive processing. Four other factors did not yield a general simultaneous factor, but classified the tests under Number-Spatial, Verbal-Spatial, Perceptual Reasoning, and a specific Digit Memory factor. Overall, the 6 factors tend to follow a multiple-factor, or a hierarchical model, rather than a dichotomous classification. (French summary) (28 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

There are no public-policy implicatons: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005).

J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (see record 2005-03637-001) purport to show public-policy implications arising from their analysis of alleged genetic bases for group mean differences in IQ. This article argues that none of these implications in fact follow from any of the data they present. The risk in work such as this is that public-policy implications may come to be ideologically driven rather than data driven, and to drive the research rather than be driven by the data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Statement by SPSSI on current IQ controversy: Heredity versus environment.

The Council for the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) in response to A. R. Jensen (see record 1969-09740-001) states that little definitive evidence exists to confirm that racial differences in intelligence test scores (ITSCs) are innate. When Blacks and Whites of comparable cultural and educational background are compared, differences in ITSCs diminish markedly. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On Hebb's criticism of Jensen.

Notes that D. O. Hebb's (see record 1990-56823-001) criticism of A. R. Jensen's (1969) consideration of the contributions of environment vs heredity to IQ is based on a failure to distinguish between the variance within a particular group and the variance between groups. Use of a one-group analysis cannot show the effects or importance of a factor in determining an aspect of behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Rejoinder: The madness to our method: Some thoughts on divergent thinking.

Replies to comments by M. D. Mumford et al. (see record 2008-05954-002), J. Baer (see record 2008-05954-003), M. A. Runco (see record 2008-05954-004), K. H. Kim (see record 2008-05954-005), N. Kogan (see record 2008-05954-006), and S. Lee (see record 2008-05954-007) on the current authors' original article on divergent thinking (see record 2008-05954-001). In this reply, the authors examine the madness to their method in light of the comments. Overall, the authors agree broadly with the comments; many of the issues will be settled only by future research. The authors disagree, though, that past research has proven past scoring methods--including the Torrance methods--to be satisfactory or satisfying. The authors conclude by offering their own criticisms of their method, of divergent thinking, and of the concept of domain-general creative abilities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Abilities, motives, and personal styles: Reply.

Responds to the comments of P. L. Ackerman (see record 2006-12925-012), D. Y. Dai (see record 2006-12925-013), and M. C. Gridley (see record 2006-12925-014) on E. S. Spelke's original article "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review" (see record 2005-15840-001). Here, the current authors first consider Ackerman's criticism of IQ measures of cognitive sex differences, as well as his suggestion that Advanced Placement tests be used as a second measure. Next, the authors discuss Dai's suggestion that cognition and motivation, abilities and strategies, are inseparably bound in any meaningful measure of aptitude for mathematics and science. Finally, the authors address Gridley's suggestion that differences in men's and women's thinking styles and preferences explain gender disparities in math and science fields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The practice of science in the family.

Responds to comments by B. D. Forman (see record 1990-29006-001), S. A. Kirschner (see record 1990-29011-001), and M. Rohrbaugh (see record 1990-29019-001) on the present authors' (see record 1990-29009-001) work on the use of paradoxical interventions with couples. Focus is on (1) the subjectivist and objectivist research approach; (2) language, relationship, and content analysis; and (3) the relevancy of science to practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Correction of a statistical error: Comment.

Comments that there was a statistical error in C. Burt's (see record 1973-10531-001) article that examined the IQs of monozygotic twins reared apart and in the comment by A. R. Jensen (1972). The error concerned the use of coefficients of correlation, determination, and nondetermination. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Meta-analysis of cognitive gender differences: A comment on an analysis by Rosenthal and Rubin.

Extends both the logic and the statistical procedures used in a recent analysis by R. Rosenthal and D. B. Rubin (see record 1983-02381-001) of data on gender differences in cognitive abilities reported in a meta-analysis by J. S. Hyde (see record 1982-07673-001). The logic of a "model fitting" approach to meta-analysis is described. Relevant statistical procedures and goodness-of-fit tests are illustrated. It is concluded that sex differences are changing over time and that essentially all of the variability in the sex differences reported by different studies can be explained as a function of the publication date and the selectivity of the sampling plan used in the studies. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)