The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy

Transcription

The IQ Controversy,
the Media and Public Policy
Mark Snyderman
and
Stanley Rothman
19
Transaction Books
N ew B runsw ick (U SA ) and O xford (UK )
C opy rig h t © 1988 by T ra n sactio n , Inc.
N ew B runsw ick, N ew Jersey 08903
All rights reserved u n d e r In te rn a tio n a l a n d P an -A m erica n C o p y rig h t C o n
v entions. N o p a rt o f th is b o o k m ay be re p ro d u ce d o r tra n sm itte d in an y
fo rm o r by an y m eans, elec tro n ic o r m e ch an ical, in c lu d in g photocopy,
recording, o r an y in fo rm a tio n storage an d retrieval system , w ith o u t p rio r
p erm issio n in w riting from th e publisher. All in q u irie s sh o u ld be ad d ressed
to T ra n sactio n Books, R u tg ers— T h e S tate U niversity, N ew B runsw ick,
N ew Jersey 08903.
L ib rary o f C ongress C atalog N u m b er: 87-35403
ISBN: 0-88738-151-0
P rin ted in th e U n ite d S tates o f A m erica
Library o f C ongress Cataloging in Publication Data
S n y d e rm a n , M ark.
T h e controversy, th e m edia, a n d p u b lic policy / M ark S n y d e rm a n
an d S tanley R o th m a n .
p.
cm .
ISB N 0-88738-151-0
1. Intelligence levels. 2. Intelligence levels in m ass m ed ia.
3. Intelligence levels— P ublic o p in io n . 4. Intelligence levels-G o v e rn m e n t policy. I. R o th m a n , Stanley, 1927. II. T itle.
III. T itle: Intelligence q u o tie n t controversy, th e m ed ia, a n d p u b lic
policy.
BF431.S615 1988
153.9'dc 19
87-35403
To m y p a re n ts for all they have given.
— M.S.
To D .R .T. for helping m e u n d ersta n d .
— S.R.
Contents
P reface
A ck now ledgm ents
1. In tro d u c tio n : T h e IQ C ontroversy in P erspective
2. T h e N a tu re o f Intelligence
3. T h e H erita b ility o f IQ
4. R ace an d Class D ifferences in IQ
5. T h e Im p ac t o f Intelligence T esting
6. It's All T h ere in Black an d W hite:
T h e E x ten t o f N ew s M edia C overage
7. N o N ew s Is G o o d News:
T he N a tu re o f N ew s M edia C overage
8. C onclusion: T h e N ew Sociology o f Science
A p p endices
Index
ix
x iii
1
43
79
105
139
175
203
249
261
303
Preface
Very few q u estio n s have spark ed m o re vio len t co n tro v ersy in th e past
tw o decades th a n tho se relatin g to th e n a tu re o f in telligence an d in te l
ligence testing.
In th e 1950s it w as w idely agreed by b o th ex p e rts a n d th e in fo rm ed
pu b lic th a t intelligence was so m e th in g th a t co u ld be m e asu red by IQ tests,
an d th a t b o th th e genetic en d o w m e n t o f th e in d iv id u al a n d his o r her
e n v iro n m e n t played a role in differences in m e asu red intelligence.
D u rin g th e 1960s an d 1970s th is view ca m e u n d e r sh a rp attack . IQ tests
w ere c o n d e m n e d as biased against b oth m in o ritie s a n d th e poor. It was
asserted th a t we d o n o t know w h at intelligence is; th a t w h atev er it is, we do
n o t know how to m easu re it, a n d th a t in d iv id u al differences in intelligence,
how ever m easu red , are prim arily, if n o t entirely, a fu n ctio n o f n u rtu re
ra th e r th a n genetic en d o w m e n t.
Today th e critiq u es o f IQ an d intelligence testin g have achieved th e statu s
o f co n v e n tio n a l w isdom a m o n g ed u c ated laym en. It is w idely believed th a t
new er scientific stu d ies have discred ited old er views, w hich w ere b ased on
b ad , even d ish o n est, science, a n d th a t th e great m a jo rity o f scien tists in the
field o f intelligence a n d intelligence studies su p p o rt th ese studies. T h e new
co n v e n tio n a l w isdom has had im p o rta n t p u b lic policy co n seq u en ces.
To d e te rm in e th e views o f th e relev an t scientific c o m m u n ity o n these
m a tte rs, we surveyed a b ro ad sam ple o f (p rim arily acad em ic) ex p e rts in th e
field. We fo u n d th a t, w hatever th e co n v e n tio n a l w isdom holds, m o st ex
p erts c o n tin u e to believe th a t intelligence can be m easu red , a n d th a t ge
n etic en d o w m e n t plays an im p o rta n t role in in d iv id u al differences in IQ.
W hile ex p erts believe th a t IQ tests are so m ew h at biased, th ey do n o t b e
lieve th a t th e bias is serious en o u g h to d iscred it such tests, an d th ey believe
th a t m easu red IQ is an im p o rta n t d e te rm in a n t o f success in A m erican
society. Indeed, despite th e discred itin g o f so m e o f Cyril B u rt’s w ork on IQ
heritability, th e w eight o f evidence su p p o rtin g such views, to ju d g e from
th e scholarly literatu re , is p ro b ab ly g reater today th a n it was in th e 1950s.
In th is book we are less in terested in w h eth e r o r n o t th e ex p erts are right
th a n in exploring th e reaso n s for th e divergence o f ex p e rt an d p u b lic views
an d th e influence o f this divergence on pu b lic policy. T h e IQ co n tro v ersy is
x
The IQ Controversy
ex a m in e d in th e c o n te x t o f o u r study o f ex p e rt o p in io n . E x p ert o p in io n is
th e n c o m p a re d to new s m e d ia re p o rtin g o f su ch o p in io n , based o n a d e
ta ile d c o n te n t analysis o f coverage o f th e IQ co n tro v ersy by th e n atio n al
m e d ia over a p erio d o f fifteen years.
We co n c lu d e th a t th e p u b lic ’s view o f th e IQ co n tro v ersy has been p artly
sh ap ed by in a c c u ra te m ed ia coverage, b u t th a t, m o re broadly, it has been
sh ap ed by changes in th e n a tu re o f A m eric an liberalism a n d th e key ro le o f
th e civil rights issue in A m eric an life. T h e a rtic u la te p u b lic ’s p erc ep tio n s o f
th e o p in io n s o f ex p e rts in th e field have b een sh ap ed far m o re by th e
g eneral in tellectu al c lim a te th a n by th e ac tu a l views o f th e ex p e rt c o m
m unity.
T h is b o o k consists o f eight chapters. C h a p te r 1 discusses th e h isto ry o f
th e study o f IQ a n d p u b lic contro v ersy a b o u t it. O u r survey o f ex p e rt
o p in io n is in tro d u c e d in C h a p te r 2.
C h a p te rs 2 to 5 su m m a riz e th e contro v ersy over th e n a tu re o f in te l
ligence, th e q u e stio n o f heritability, g ro u p differences in IQ , a n d th e use o f
intelligence tests. T h e scholarly a n d lay lite ra tu re on th ese issues is re
view ed an d th e views o f o u r ex p e rt sam p le discussed. (A so m ew h at m o re
tech n ical, if briefer, discussion o f th e resu lts o f o u r survey can be fo u n d in
M ark S n y d e rm a n an d S tanley R o th m a n , “ Survey o f E x p ert O p in io n on
Intelligence a n d A p titu d e T esting,” A m eric a n P sychologist 42, 2 (F e b ru a ry
1987): 137—144.)
C h a p te rs 6 a n d 7 describe o u r analysis o f new s m e d ia coverage o f th e IQ
issue.
O u r findings are su m m a riz e d in C h a p te r 8. In th a t ch a p te r we also
r e tu rn to th e ce n tral th e m e o f th e study, i.e., th e social a n d p o litical facto rs
th a t influence th e c o m m u n ic a tio n o f in fo rm a tio n a b o u t co n tro v ersial sci
entific issues to th e p ublic. We also draw so m e g en eral co n c lu sio n s a b o u t
th e ch an g in g role o f science a n d scientists in decisio n s a b o u t p u b lic policy.
We c o n c lu d e th a t th e grow ing in fluence o f new strateg ic elites a n d th e
ch an g in g role o f th e m ass m e d ia have had a p ro fo u n d effect on th e c o m
m u n ic a tio n o f scientific in fo rm a tio n to th e public.
T h e en d o f th e book c o n ta in s a series o f a p p e n d ic es th a t g enerally c o n
ta in m o re tech n ical in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e ex p e rt survey a n d c o n te n t a n a l
ysis. A p p e n d ix A is a c h ro n o lo g y o f th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f n o tio n s o f
intelligence a n d intelligence te stin g a n d th e con tro v ersy a b o u t these. A p
p en d ix E is o f p a rtic u la r n o te because it c o n ta in s th e resu lts o f a su rv ey o f
th e a ttitu d e s o f jo u rn a lis ts an d ed ito rs o n th e IQ q u estio n .
T h is book is o n e o f a series o f studies sp o n so red by th e C e n te r for th e
S tu d y o f Social a n d P olitical C h an g e a t S m ith C ollege. T h e stu d ies focus on
c o m m u n ic a tio n o f scientific in fo rm a tio n a b o u t co n tro v ersial issues to th e
p ublic. O th e r areas th a t have been o r are being stu d ied in clu d e n u clea r
Preface
xi
energy an d en v iro n m e n ta l cancer. T hese studies, in tu r n , are p a rt o f a
m a jo r ex p lo ra tio n by th e C e n te r o f the n a tu re a n d d irec tio n o f social an d
p o litical change in th e U n ite d S tates, directed by S tanley R o th m a n .
O u r q u estio n n a ire s, codebooks, an d c o m p u te r tap es have been d ep o si
te d at th e R o p er P ublic O p in io n C e n te r at th e U n iv ersity o f C o n n e cticu t,
as have the tap es a n d co d ebook o f o u r c o n te n t analysis.
Acknowledgements
T h e a u th o rs gratefully acknow ledge th e follow ing scholars a n d p u b lic a
tio n s fo r p e rm issio n to use p re v io u sly p u b lis h e d m a te ria l: P ro fesso r
T h o m a s J. B ouchard, Jr. an d S cience for p erm issio n to use F igure 1 from
T.J. B o uchard et. al. “ F am ilia S tudies o f Intelligence: A R eview ” , S cience
212 (29 May. 1981), p.1056.
We th a n k Ja m es D avis, S heldon W hite, a n d th e p ilo t stu d y resp o n d e n ts
for th e ir helpful c o m m e n ts d u rin g th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e q u estio n n a ire ,
K ath lee n M c C artn e y a n d D ouw e Y n te m a for th e ir help w ith th e statistical
analyses, an d Ja cq u e lin e B o u d reau an d A rian n e S tu b b s for th e ir assistance
in th e p re p a ra tio n an d m ailing o f th e q u e stio n n a ire s a n d fo llo w -u p s. A lan
M cA rdle played a key role in getting th e d a ta in final o rd e r a n d in d ev elo p
ing th e m ore com p lex statistical analyses.
K u d o s to Ia n C o n d ry , S ally C o n n o r, M ic h a e l E a s tw o o d , A im e e
F lam ilto n , R ich ard M alone, a n d Ja n e W ein zim m er for w ith stan d in g th e
ord eal o f c o n te n t analysis coding. O le H olsti a n d Phil S to n e lent th e ir
ex p ertise to th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e coding schem e. P atric ia D avies helped
th e c o n te n t analysis ch a p te rs alo n g th e p ath to readability. T h e en tire p ro
je c t w as aided by several co n v e rsatio n s w ith C arol Weiss.
Special th a n k s to R ich a rd H e rrn ste in for his in v alu ab le co m m e n ts on
th e q u e stio n n a ire a n d th e m a n u sc rip t o f th e b ook , as well as for access to
his v o lu m in o u s files, an d to W ill G o ld b eck , w ho deserves m u c h o f th e
c red it for w h a t’s right w ith th e c o n te n t analysis, an d n o n e o f th e b lam e for
w h a t’s w rong.
T h e follow ing fo u n d a tio n s p rovided financial su p p o rt for o u r w ork: T h e
C a rth ag e F o u n d a tio n , T he S arah Scaife F o u n d a tio n , T h e E a rh a rt F o u n d a
tio n , a n d T h e J. M. F o u n d a tio n .
1
Introduction: The IQ Controversy in
Perspective
The C hallenge to Testing
In F eb ru ary 1969, th e H arvard E d u ca tio n a l R eview ( H E R ) p u b lish ed an
artic le en title d “ H ow M uch C an We Boost IQ a n d S cholastic A chieve
m e n t? ” T h e auth o r, U n iv ersity o f C a lifo rn ia ed u c a tio n professor A rth u r
Je n sen , h ypothesized th a t th e a p p a re n t failure o f large scale co m p en sa to ry
e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m s in te n d e d to b o o st IQ a n d sc h o lastic a c h ie v e m e n t
co u ld be traced to th e largely h eritab le n a tu re o f intelligence. H e also
p ro p o sed th a t th e average IQ difference betw een th e b lack an d w hite p o p u
la tio n s in th e U n ite d States m ight be d u e in p a rt to gen etic factors.
R eactio n to J e n se n ’s article w as swift an d severe. T h e m essage scraw led
o n w alls an d p lacard s an d c o n ta in e d in h an d b ills d istrib u te d by stu d e n t
p ro testo rs at Berkeley was th a t Je n sen w as a racist an d a N azi, a n d sh o u ld
be o u sted from th e university. Je n se n ’s office w as p icketed, a n d his classes
w ere regularly d isru p te d . S im ilar rea ctio n m e t Je n s e n ’s a tte m p ts to give
lectures at o th e r cam puses. For weeks, th e stu d e n t n ew sp ap er was filled
w ith articles an d letters c o n c e rn in g Je n sen , m o st highly critical, m a n y
violently so. A t o n e p o in t, th e activities o f th e Berkeley ch a p te r o f th e
S tu d en ts for a D em o c ratic Society (SD S) b ecam e so bellig eren t th a t th e
c a m p u s police th o u g h t it best to assign tw o p la in clo th es b o d y g u ard s to
ac c o m p an y Je n sen a ro u n d c a m p u s.1
A t H arv ard , letters to th e C rim so n also a tta c k e d Jen sen , b u t m an y p ro
tests w ere directed at th e H E R for having p u b lish ed th e article. P erh ap s
a n tic ip a tin g th e in fla m m a to ry effect o f Je n se n ’s arg u m e n ts, th e H E R had
solicited, p rio r to th e p u b lic atio n o f Jen sen 's article, c o m m e n ta rie s by
seven ex p e rt critics. T hese w ere p ublished in th e follow ing issue (Spring).
But even the ed ito rs o f th e H E R h ad n o t an tic ip a te d th e full force o f th e
1
2
The IQ Controversy
rea ctio n to Je n sen , an d they w ere u n p re p a re d to h an d le it. D ecid in g th a t
th e seven scholarly reb u ttals p u blished in th e sp rin g w ere insufficient, th e
ed ito rs in clu d ed a d d itio n a l critiq u es in th e S u m m e r 1969 issue o f th e jo u r
nal. M any o f these, by th e ir u ncivil a n d a rb itra ry n atu re , w ere far below th e
sta n d a rd s o f an acad em ic jo u rn a l. T he ed ito rs released a sta te m e n t c la im
ing th a t they h ad nev er asked Je n sen to deal w ith th e racial issue in his
article, an assertio n Je n sen w as easily able to refu te by p ro d u c in g a copy o f
H E R 's original so licitatio n le tte r in c lu d in g an o u tlin e specifically m e n tio n
ing racial differences in intelligence. W hen all else failed, th e H E R ed ito rs
te m p o ra rily sto p p ed selling copies o f th e issue co n ta in in g Je n se n ’s article,
even refusing to sell rep rin ts to Jen sen him self.2
R e a c tio n fro m J e n s e n ’s p ro fe ssio n a l colleag u es w as, a t best, m ix ed .
M an y d ecried th e uncivil tre a tm e n t being acco rd ed Je n sen , an d p u b licly
d efen d ed his right to express his views, w hile d eclarin g th e ir ow n disag ree
m e n t w ith his conclu sio n s. O th ers expressed th e ir a g re em e n t w ith Je n sen
in perso n al letters a n d co n v ersatio n s, b u t w ere u nw illing to d o so publicly.
T h e strongest a n d m o st p ro m in e n t professional sta te m e n ts w ere d ecid ed ly
a n ti- J e n s e n .3 T h e S ociety fo r th e P sychological S tu d y o f S ocial Issues
(SPSSI), a d ivision o f th e A m eric an Psychological A sso ciatio n (APA), re
leased a five page sta te m e n t to all the m a jo r new s services o u tlin in g th e ir
d isa g re em en t w ith v irtu ally all o f th e m a jo r p o in ts in Je n s e n ’s article .4 A
g ro u p called Psychologists for Social A ction urged J e n s e n ’s ex p u lsio n from
th e APA. T h e 1969 co n v e n tio n o f th e A m eric an A n th ro p o lo g ical A ssocia
tio n (AA A ) passed a reso lu tio n co n d e m n in g J e n se n ’s p o sitio n on racial
differences a n d en c o u rag in g m em b ers to fight racism th ro u g h th e use o f
“ all available o u tle ts in th e n a tio n a l a n d local m ed ia.”5
T h e u p ro a r su rro u n d in g J e n se n ’s thesis w as n o t lim ite d to college c a m
puses. As th e AAA h ad h o ped, th e n a tio n a l a n d local new s m ed ia w ere
q u ic k to pick u p on th e story, em p h asizin g J e n s e n ’s co n c lu sio n s a b o u t
racial differences. T h e H E R ed ito rs them selves played a cru cial ro le in
fostering press coverage, se n d in g press releases a n d co p ies o f th e a rtic le an d
reb u ttals to m a n y new spapers an d p o p u la r m agazines. T h e m e d ia w asted
n o tim e in giving full coverage to Jen sen . By J u n e 1969, th e N e w York
T im e s alread y h ad d ev o ted several articles to Je n se n ’s a rg u m e n ts a n d th e
en su in g p rotests, an d each o f th e th ree m a jo r new sw eeklies h ad p u b lish ed
at least o n e artic le on Je n se n ’s th e o ry th a t blacks are “ B o rn D u m b .”6 L ocal
new spapers th ro u g h o u t th e c o u n try pro v id ed sim ila r coverage. W h en th e
N e w York T im e s M a g a zin e p u b lish ed a lengthy article en title d “je n sen ism ,
n. T h e T h eo ry th a t IQ Is D e te rm in e d Largely by th e G en es” in A ugust
1969, n o t on ly h ad a new w ord e n tered th e m ed ia vocabulary, b u t th e
T im e s M a g a zin e received m o re letters th a n it had for th e p u b lic a tio n o f
an y artic le in its history, a n d m o re letters th a n th e p ap e r h ad received on
Introduction: The IQ Controversy in Perspective
3
an y issue since th e assassination o f P resid en t K ennedy.7 T h e T im es M a g a
zin e p u blished fifteen o f th e letters over a tw o -w eek p erio d . M an y o f th e m
n o t only attac k ed Je n sen for his p o sitio n s on th e h eritab le n a tu re o f in te l
ligence. an d th e possible genetic causes o f race differences in IQ. b u t also
criticized intelligence tests in general as biased a n d m ean in g less as m e a
sures o f intelligence.
The Controversy and Its Effects
T h e c o n te n t o f th e T im e s M a g a zin e letters is an in d ic atio n th a t th e
p u blic controversy h ad b ec o m e m u ch larger th a n Je n sen a n d his h y p o th
eses. T he past eighteen years has seen a steady stream o f attac k s on in te l
ligence an d a p titu d e tests, b o th from p o litica l o rg a n iz a tio n s a n d from
w ith in th e psychological an d ed u c atio n al c o m m u n itie s. It is freq u en tly
claim ed th a t tests are cu ltu rally biased, invalid, irre le v an t, stig m atizin g ,
an d restrictive o f o p p o rtu n itie s. Test m ak ers have been accused o f ex ertin g
u n w a rra n te d co n tro l over test ta k ers’ lives, an d o f engaging in secretive an d
u n fair practices. O rg a n iz atio n s like th e N atio n al E d u ca tio n A ssociation
(N EA ). th e N AACP. a n d th e A ssociation o f Black Psychologists (A B P) have
called for a co m p lete m o ra to riu m on sta n d ard iz ed tests. R alp h N ad e r has
been active in recen t years in criticizing th e E d u ca tio n a l T esting Service
(ETS), m akers o f th e Scholastic A p titu d e Test (SAT) an d o th e r ad m issio n s
tests, for p e rp e tu a tin g class d istin ctio n s, a n d th e ir ow n w ealth, th ro u g h
biased a n d m eaningless tests. Books w ith titles like T h e S cien ce a n d P olitics
o f IQ , T he T esting Trap, T he M y th o f M ea su ra b ility , an d T h e M ism e a su re
o f M a n have added fuel to th e fire by q u e s tio n in g th e en tire testin g en te r
p rise.8 N o r has th is criticism subsided. A n O cto b e r 1985 press co n feren ce
a n n o u n c e d th e fo rm a tio n o f “ FairT est.” an o rg an iz atio n w hose p u rp o se it
is to “e x a m in e th e exam iners.” Jo h n Weiss, th e executive d ire c to r o f F air
T est e x p la in e d th a t “ [e]very y ea r th e e d u c a tio n a l a n d c a re e r o p p o r
tu n itie s— an d self p erc ep tio n s— o f over 10 m illio n A m eric an s are forever
altered by p sychological exam s. M o st o f th e se sta n d a rd iz e d m u ltip le ch oice tests are cu ltu rally biased an d p oorly designed.”9
T h e result o f m u c h o f th is criticism has been su b stan tia l change in test
use p ractices in th e th ree m a jo r areas in w hich in telligence an d ap titu d e
tests have tra d itio n a lly been used: elem e n ta ry a n d se co n d a ry schools, e m
p lo y m en t. an d ad m issio n to schools o f higher e d u c atio n . As a m a tte r o f
g eneral practice in e le m e n ta ry an d se co n d a ry schools, th e re is reason to
believe th a t tests o f intelligence an d general a p titu d e are n o t as freq u en tly
given, o r as often used, as they once were. In a 1964 n atio n w id e survey
c o n d u c te d by th e A kro n , O hio, P ublic S chools, 100% o f large -c ity an d
- c o u n ty test d irec to rs polled re p o rte d using g ro u p ab ility (intelligence a n d
4
The IQ Controversy
a p titu d e ) tests in elem e n ta ry school grades 4 th ro u g h 6, a n d in ju n io r high
g rades 7 th ro u g h 9. A 1977 fo llo w -u p survey fo u n d th a t th e freq u en cy o f
test use had declin ed d ram atically, to 23.4% in g rades 4 to 6 a n d 35.1% in
ju n io r high sc h o o l.10
M uch o f th e change in g ro u p intelligence a n d a p titu d e test use is a resu lt
o f a grow ing ed u c atio n al tre n d away fro m th e se p aratio n o f stu d e n ts in to
ab ility groups, know n as track in g . C onsequently, as even m a n y o f testing's
strongest p ro p o n e n ts have agreed, w ith o u t th e necessity o f se p aratin g s tu
d e n ts by ability level m u c h o f th e need for sy stem atic in telligence an d
a p titu d e testing vanishes. A fter all, how useful is know ledge o f a stu d e n t’s
IQ to a te ac h er w hose p rim a ry c o n c e rn is th a t th e stu d e n t m a ste r th e class
m a terial? T h ere is, o n th e o th e r h an d , th e d an g e r th a t th ese n u m b e rs (IQ
an d a p titu d e test scores) ca n be m isin te rp rete d a n d m isu sed by th o se w ith
o u t th e p ro p e r train in g . S om e have expressed th e fear th a t know ledge o f
in telligence test scores m ay actu ally be h a rm fu l to th e stu d e n t, creatin g
u n rea listic ex p e ctatio n s o f e ith e r to o little o r to o g reat ac ad e m ic ach iev e
m ent.
T h e m o v e m en t away from track in g , a n d fro m th e use o f in telligence a n d
a p titu d e tests in m a k in g trac k in g decisions, w as given a su b stan tia l b o o st
by a 1967 federal c o u rt decision. H ob so n v. H a n se n 11 w as th e first in a series
o f c o u rt cases involving testin g th a t have h a d a m a jo r im p a c t on testin g
practices. In H obson, th e ability g ro u p in g system th e n in ex isten ce in th e
W ashington, D .C ., p u b lic schools was ch allenged as b eing racially d isc rim i
n a to ry as defined in T itle VI o f th e Civil R ights A ct o f 1964. T h e p rin cip al
piece o f evidence for racial d isc rim in a tio n w as th e d isp ro p o rtio n a te e n ro ll
m e n t o f black ch ild ren in low er ability groups. T esting b ec am e an issue in
th e case because it was d e te rm in e d th a t scores o n g ro u p -a d m in is te re d
ap titu d e tests w ere an im p o rta n t elem e n t in th e p la ce m en t decision. O n
average, black stu d e n ts scored low er on these tests th a n d id w h ite stu d en ts.
Ju d g e Skelly W right was th u s forced to e x a m in e th e valid ity o f th ese tests.
E x p ert testim o n y from b o th sides o f th e case m a d e it clear th a t th e ap titu d e
tests used w ere n o t, n o r w ere th ey in te n d e d as, m e asu res o f in n a te ability,
b u t w ere in te n d e d as tests o f ac q u ired skills th a t are in flu en ced by a ch ild ’s
c u ltu ra l a n d ed u c atio n al b ac k g ro u n d . To Ju d g e W right, th a t black ch ild ren
scored low er o n such tests w as ta n ta m o u n t to racial bias, a n d he ru led in
favor o f th e plaintiffs, striking dow n th e D .C . trac k in g system , a n d p lacing
a stigm a on intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests.
T h e o n u s o f th e H ob so n d ecision w as felt clearly in L a r r y P. v. W ilson
R ile s ,12 th e m o st im p o r ta n t c o u r t case to d a te in v o lv in g IQ tests. In
N o v em b e r 1971, th e p a re n ts o f seven b lack ch ild ren b ro u g h t su it ag ain st
th e S tate o f C a lifo rn ia in th e U n ite d States D istric t C o u rt for th e N o rth e rn
D istric t o f C a lifo rn ia, claim in g th a t th e ir ch ild ren h ad been in c o rrec tly
5
p laced in classes for th e educab le m en tally reta rd e d (E M R ) o n th e basis o f
cu ltu rally biased IQ tests. T h e plaintiffs, u n d e r th e in stig atio n an d w ith th e
assistance o f th e Bay A rea A ssociation o f Black P sychologists, th e U rb a n
League, an d th e N A A C P Legal D efense F u n d , a m o n g o th ers, p resen ted as
ev idence o f racial d isc rim in a tio n th e fact th a t b lack ch ild ren w ere rep re
sen ted in E M R classes in San F rancisco in n u m b e rs far in excess o f th e ir
p ro p o rtio n in th e school d istric t as a w hole, as well as th e claim th a t th e
ch allenged intelligence tests w ere th e p rim a ry d e te rm in a n t o f E M R p lace
m en t. A n in ju n c tio n was sought, calling for th e e lim in a tio n o f all cu ltu rally
b iased tests, a réé v alu a tio n o f all black E M R ch ild ren , a n d th e estab lish
m e n t o f a q u o ta so th a t black ch ild ren w ould no longer be d isp ro p o r
tio n a te ly assigned to E M R classes. T h e case w as h eard by Ju d g e R o b e rt
P eckham .
T h ere is an im p o rta n t d istin c tio n betw een th e H o b so n an d L a rry P.
cases, o th e r th a n th a t o nly th e la tte r w as a challenge to tests directly. H o b
son involved larg e -scale a d m in istra tio n o f gro u p in telligence a n d a p titu d e
tests in an ap p lica tio n o f q u estio n a b le value, ability gro u p in g . In L a r r y P.,
o n th e o th e r h an d , in d iv id u ally a d m in iste re d intelligence tests, universally
recognized as m o re valid a n d reliable th a n gro u p tests, w ere being attac k ed
precisely w here they had previously been th o u g h t to be m o st useful, for
d iagnosis o f a n d ed u c atio n al p la n n in g for special needs stu d en ts.
Ju d g e P eckham accepted th e d a ta on d isp ro p o rtio n a te E M R e n ro llm e n t
as p rim a facie evidence o f d isc rim in a tio n , th u s shifting th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f
to th e d efe n d an ts to show a ratio n al c o n n e c tio n betw een th e tests an d th e ir
alleged use. As a resu lt o f th e p re lim in a ry hearing. Ju d g e P eck h am c o n
clu d ed th a t the state had failed to m eet th is b u rd e n , an d ru led th a t th e
school system had vio lated th e stu d e n ts' rights to eq u al p ro tec tio n . H e
g ran te d a p re lim in a ry in ju n c tio n in 1972 en jo in in g an y fu tu re p la ce m en t
o f black ch ild ren in to E M R classes on th e basis o f in telligence tests. In
1974, th a t in ju n c tio n was b ro ad e n ed to in c lu d e th e elim in a tio n o f in te l
ligence testin g o f all black ch ild ren in C a lifo rn ia, an d a y ear later th e state
b o ard o f ed u c a tio n ex ten d ed th e m o ra to riu m to th e use o f in telligence tests
for th e p la ce m en t o f all stu d e n ts in to E M R classes.
T h e full trial began in O cto b e r 1977 a n d lasted over seven m o n th s.
T w enty-six ex p e rt w itnesses w ere called by b o th sides, in an a tte m p t to
establish th e validity, o r invalidity, o f IQ tests for E M R p lacem en t. T h e
c o u r t’s decision, w hich did n o t co m e u n til 1979, w as essentially th e sam e as
in th e p re lim in a ry hearing. Judge P eckham fo u n d c u ltu ra l bias in tests to
be th e m o st rea so n ab le e x p la n a tio n for th e d isp ro p o rtio n a te n u m b e r o f
blacks in E M R classes, a n d co n c lu d e d th a t th e state had o n ce again failed
to establish th e validity o f intelligence tests for th is pu rp o se. T h e ju d g e
th e re fo re ru led th a t th e plaintiffs had m et th e ir b u rd e n o f proving d isc rim i
6
The IQ Controversy
n a tio n on th e p a rt o f th e state, a n d en jo in ed th e sta te fro m using an y IQ
tests fo r th e p la ce m en t o f b lack ch ild ren in to E M R classes w ith o u t th e
p rio r ap proval o f th e c o u rt. In a d d itio n , th e c o u r t’s d ecisio n req u ired th a t
th e sta tu s o f all b lack ch ild ren cu rre n tly en ro lled in E M R classes be im m e
d iately reev alu ated , an d th a t E M R e n ro llm e n t be m o n ito re d so th a t th e
p ro p o rtio n o f all m in o rity ch ild ren in C a lifo rn ia ’s E M R classes reflected
th e ir p ro p o rtio n in th e school p o p u la tio n . In 1984, Ju d g e P e c k h a m ’s d ec i
sion was u p h eld by th e U n ite d States C o u rt o f A ppeals for th e N in th
C irc u it.13
Ironically, as Ju d g e P eck h am w as reaching his d ecisio n , C a lifo rn ia w as in
th e process o f com p letely revising its system o f special ed u c a tio n in o rd er
to b rin g it in line w ith th e federal E d u ca tio n for All H a n d ic a p p e d C h ild re n
A ct o f 1975. T h is law calls for m o re in d iv id u alize d p ro g ra m s o f in stru c tio n
for h an d ic a p p e d ch ild ren , as well as ed u c a tio n in reg u lar classro o m s w h en
ever possible. U n d e r th e M aster P lan for Special E d u ca tio n , as it w as th e n
called, C a lifo rn ia n o longer has an y th in g resem b lin g E M R classes o r th e
E M R classification; labels are now ap p lied to types o f in stru c tio n , n o t to
th e stu d e n ts, a n d very few h a n d ica p p ed stu d e n ts are co m p letely sep arated
fro m th e ir n o n -h a n d ic a p p e d classm ates. M oreover, th e sta te keeps n o rec
o rd s o f th e p ro p o rtio n o f stu d e n ts o f vario u s racial a n d e th n ic b ack g ro u n d s
en ro lled in these p rogram s. All o f th is m e an s th a t u n til late 1986, in te l
ligence tests c o n tin u e d to be used in C a lifo rn ia as o n e elem e n t o f an
extensive p ro g ram o f e v a lu a tio n an d special ed u c a tio n c u rric u lu m p la n
n in g for b o th black an d w hite stu d e n ts, a n d th e L a r r y P. ru lin g w as vir
tu ally u n e n fo rc e a b le .14
In D e c em b e r 1986, Ju d g e P eck h am issued a d irectiv e b an n in g sta te a d
m in istra tio n o f intelligence tests to all b lack ch ild ren referred for special
e d u c atio n . In M ay 1987, M a ry A m aya received a le tte r fro m th e p u b lic
school in R ialto , C a lifo rn ia, asking her p e rm issio n to te st h e r son, D e m o n d
C raw ford, for possible p la c e m e n t in special ed u c a tio n classes. T h e le tte r
c o n ta in e d a p o stscrip t ex p lain in g th a t because D e m o n d is black, th e school
psychologist w ould be u n ab le to give h im an intellig en ce test. Ms. A m aya
b ec am e angered th a t h er child w as being d ep riv e d o f a co m p lete analysis o f
his p ro b lem s in school. U n c o n v in c e d by ex p la n a tio n s o f te st bias fro m th e
N A A C P a n d L arry P.’s atto rn ey , M s. A m aya to o k h er case to th e U n ite d
S tates Civil R ights C o m m issio n , w ho in Ju ly 1987 began g ath erin g facts
a b o u t th e case o f D e m o n d C raw fo rd .15 T h e o u tc o m e o f th is in v estig atio n
an d an y legal ac tio n M s. A m aya m ay p u rsu e co u ld have a p ro fo u n d effect
on th e use o f intelligence tests in special ed u c atio n .
A t presen t, it is difficult to gauge th e overall im p a ct o f th e L a r r y P.
d ecision on th e use o f in d iv id u ally a d m in iste re d in telligence tests for spe
c ia l-n e e d s stu d en ts. C o m p re h en siv e d a ta o n such test p ractices are sorely
7
lacking. We do know th a t these tests can n o longer be used for th e d iagnosis
o f th e special ed u c a tio n needs o f black ch ild ren in th e C a lifo rn ia p u b lic
schools. M oreover, follow ing th e ap p ellate c o u rt d ecision, a challenge to
test use in federal d istric t c o u rt in any state in th e N in th C irc u it (A rizo n a,
Id aho, M o n ta n a , N evada, O regon, a n d W ashington) w ould p ro b ab ly lead
to a sim ila r b an in tho se ju risd ic tio n s. It is also likely th a t th e fear o f
litig ation has h ad a chilling effect on te st a d m in istra tio n in o th e r school
d istricts, p articu la rly w here black stu d e n ts are involved.
T h e legal p ro ce d u re in test challenge cases, w here adverse im p a ct (gener
ally in te rp re ted as low er average scores by blacks o r o th e r m in o rities on
tests used to m ake allocative decisions) is ta k en as p rim a facie ev idence o f
d is c rim in a tio n , w as established in a 1971 S u p rem e C o u rt case in v olving
em p lo y m e n t testing, Griggs v. D u k e Power C o .'6 In fact, charges o f racial
d isc rim in a tio n in em p lo y m e n t p ractices th ro u g h th e use o f biased a p titu d e
tests have been the m o st c o m m o n an d m o st successful fo rm o f legal c h a l
lenge to tests in recen t years. T h e ease w ith w hich em p lo y m e n t tests are
stru ck dow n derives from th e G riggs case, in w hich th e c o u rt p laced th e
b u rd e n o f p ro o f u p o n th e em p lo y er in cases o f adverse im p a c t to show th a t
th e te st in q u e stio n is “ a reaso n ab le m easu re o f jo b p e rfo rm a n c e ,” a n d
sh o u ld be used despite in e q u alitie s in te st score betw een gro u p s. T h e c o u rt
left u n an sw ered th e q u estio n o f precisely w h at such a m easu re en tails, b u t
th e S u p rem e C o u rt an d low er c o u rts in su b se q u en t cases have estab lish ed
th e practice o f show ing “great d efe re n ce” to th e E q u al E d u ca tio n O p p o r
tu n ity C o m m issio n (E E O C ) G u id e lin e s on E m p lo y m e n t T estin g P ro
cedures. (T he E E O C is charged w ith enfo rcin g T itle VII o f th e 1964 C ivil
R ights A ct, d ealing w ith u n fair labor practices, a n d is th e rec ip ien t o f
th o u sa n d s o f c o m p la in ts o f u n fa ir test use each year.)
T h is cu sto m has dealt a v irtu a l d ea th blow to th e use o f ap titu d e tests in
e m p lo y m e n t (o f seventy T itle VII cases decid ed by federal c o u rts betw een
1971 a n d 1976, 80 p e rc e n t w ere w on by th e p la in tiffs ).17 T h e E E O C
G u idelines rely heavily on th e APA S ta n d a rd s fo r E d u ca tio n a l a n d P sycho
logical T ests, w hich establishes v alid atio n criteria m e a n t p rim a rily for test
d ev elo p ers w ith th e resources to c o n d u c t la rg e -scale v alid atio n stu d ies
in v olving h u n d re d s o f subjects. In d iv id u al em ployers, o n th e o th e r h an d ,
can rarely afford to c o n d u c t such studies, a n d so m u st rely on th e v alid a
tio n supplied by th e test m aker, w hich generally d e m o n stra te th e tests’
ab ility to pred ict p erfo rm a n c e on a w ide variety o f jo b s o f generic d escrip
tio n . T h e c o u rts have, in general, been unw illing to accep t such v alid atio n
in cases w here th e re is adverse im p a ct; em ployers have been req u ired to
show co m p re h en siv e v alid atio n d a ta specific to th e jo b o r jo b s in q u e s
tio n .18
O n e result o f th is legal p reced en t, a n d th e clim a te o f fear p ro d u ce d by
8
The IQ Controversy
g o v ern m e n t advisories on test u se ,19 m ay be th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f fairer a n d
m o re valid em p lo y m e n t tests. A m ore c o m m o n rea ctio n seem s to be th e
e lim in a tio n o f em p lo y m e n t testin g by m a n y firm s (a 1976 survey o f 200
co m p a n ie s fo u n d th a t 42% w ere using e m p lo y m e n t tests, c o m p a re d to 90%
d o in g so in a sim ila r survey in 1963)20 in favor o f o th e r selection p ro ce d u re s
(interview s, b io d a ta, etc.) th a t th e c o u rts are w illing to accept. T h a t these
legally accep ted criteria all p red ic t jo b p e rfo rm a n c e less well th a n ap titu d e
tests led one testin g ex p e rt to quip, “ I t’s O .K . to be fairly stu p id , b u t n o t
O .K . to be unfairly stu p id .”21
E m p lo y m e n t te stin g in th e public sector, w hich is far m o re c o m m o n
th a n in priv ate industry, has also suffered a declin e as a resu lt o f litig atio n .
A m a jo r setback to civil service testin g ca m e w ith th e 1981 c o n se n t d ecree
in volving th e federal g o v e rn m e n t’s P rofessional a n d A d m in istra tiv e C a re er
E x a m in a tio n (PACE). A su it b ro u g h t again st th e U .S. C ivil Service C o m
m issio n in 1972 alleged d isc rim in a tio n again st black ap p lic a n ts th ro u g h
th e use o f th e F ederal Service E n tra n c e E x a m in a tio n (FSEE), a te st o f
verbal a n d q u a n tita tiv e rea so n in g used for e m p lo y m e n t in over 200 federal
jo b s .22 W hile th e case w as o n appeal in 1975, th e Civil Service C o m m issio n
rep la ce d th e FSE E w ith PACE, a carefu lly c o n s tru c te d a n d rese arch e d
ex am m easu rin g five types o f ability d e m o n stra te d to be im p o rta n t to
p e rfo rm a n c e in 118 jo b s. T h e five subtests co u ld be w eighted d ifferentially
d e p e n d in g o n th e jo b in q u estio n . D espite its a p p a re n t w e ll-d o c u m e n te d
validity, a 1979 T itle VII challenge to PACE led to a 1981 c o n sen t d ecree
th a t called for th e e lim in a tio n o f th e exam over th ree years. T h e federal
g o v ern m e n t, like m an y o th e r em ployers, finds itself m o v in g to w ard sep a
rate, highly jo b - re la te d exam s fo r each jo b category.
In practice, ju s t a b o u t th e o nly e m p lo y m e n t tests th a t have been ab le to
m e et such challenges are th o se w ith high “ face” validity, th a t is, ac tu al w ork
sam p les th a t lo o k like th e jo b being tested for. As a case in p o in t, co n sid er
th e N ew York C ity Police D e p a rtm e n t’s se rg e an t’s exam . In Ju ly 1981, an
ag re em e n t w as reach ed betw een th e city, th e federal g o v ern m e n t, a n d v ari
o us m in o rity g ro u p s w ith in th e police d e p a rtm e n t in o rd e r to settle a series
o f civil rights suits ch arging th a t th e se rg e an t’s ex am th e n in use d isc rim i
n ated against m in o rity m em bers. T h e se ttle m e n t stip u la te d th a t a new test
be developed, o n e specifically designed n o t to be d iscrim in ato ry . T h e test
w as d eveloped by a F lo rid a firm chosen by th e city w ith th e ap p ro v al o f th e
o th e r p arties to th e agreem en t. T h e new test, designed in c o n s u lta tio n w ith
ex p e rts from th e city ’s police a n d p erso n n e l d e p a rtm e n ts , co st $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 to
d evelop a n d validate. T h e test w as given to a g ro u p o f over 11,000 p olice
officers in Ju ly 1983. Slightly less th a n 11 p e rc e n t o f w h ite officers passed
th e test, co m p ared to on ly 1.6 p erc en t o f black an d 4.4 p e rc e n t o f H isp a n ic
can d id ates. G ro u p s rep rese n tin g black a n d H isp a n ic officers ch arg ed th a t
9
th e test w as racially biased a n d d e m a n d e d th a t th e resu lts be th ro w n o u t.
M ayor K och expressed confidence th a t th e te st h ad been p ro p erly v alid ated
a n d w as n o t biased, an d a n n o u n c e d th a t his a d m in istra tio n w ould sta n d by
th e te st results. T h e c o m p la in a n ts filed related law suits claim in g th a t th e
test was d isc rim in a to ry a n d sh o u ld be elim in a te d . In N o v em b er 1985 th e
city a n n o u n c e d th a t it w ould n o t use th e results o f th e 1983 se rg e an t’s
ex am , an d instead w ould p ro m o te police officers on th e basis o f a q u o ta
system . T h is policy reversal follow ed a d e te rm in a tio n by city law yers th a t
th ey co u ld n o t d e m o n stra te to a c o u r t’s satisfactio n th a t th e exam was
sufficiently jo b related to w a rra n t its use d espite adverse im p act. In p a r
ticular, ce rtain q u e stio n s o n th e exam w ere deem ed in d efen sib le as jo b
related because, for exam ple, they req u ired ex am in ees to p ro d u ce from
m e m o ry in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e degree o f seriou sn ess o f v ario u s crim es,
d a ta th a t sergeants co u ld look u p w hen actu ally on th e jo b . T h e city su b se
q u e n tly began an investigation o f how o n e - h a lf m illio n d o llars co u ld have
b een so m isspent.
W hile th u s far escaping d irect legal challenge in c o u rt, ap titu d e test use
in ad m issio n s to schools o f higher ed u c a tio n has been n o less th e su b ject o f
p u b lic criticism in recen t years th a n has test use in e le m e n ta ry a n d seco n d
a ry schools a n d in em p lo y m e n t. In 1980, C o lu m b ia U n iv ersity stu d e n t
A llan N a irn a n d his associates, w orking u n d e r th e au sp ices o f R alp h N ader,
p u b lish ed T he R eig n o f E T S . In th e book, criticism s tra d itio n a lly reserved
for sta n d a rd intelligence tests are d irected at tests used in ad m issio n s.
N a irn et al. argue th a t tests like th e SAT a n d the Law S chool A d m issio n s
Test (LSAT) are alm o st useless as p red ic to rs o f p e rfo rm a n c e in college o r
law school, are racially a n d socio eco n o m ically biased, a n d are a fraud
foisted on th e p u b lic by th e ETS in o rd er to keep u p profits a n d p e rp e tu a te
th e ir in o rd in a te hold over test ta k ers’ lives.
T he R eig n o f E T S , a n d a host o f o th e r boo k s a n d articles, are p a rt o f th e
m o st recen t tre n d in th e IQ controversy: a m ove tø lessen relian ce on
a d m is s io n s te sts. W h e n a 1977 C ollege E n tra n c e E x a m in a tio n B o ard
(C EE B ) study p an el suggested th a t th e fifteen year d eclin e in SAT scores
am o n g A m eric an high school stu d e n ts m ight be d u e in p a rt to d eclin in g
ac ad e m ic sta n d ard s, th e N E A , th e c o u n try ’s largest te ach ers’ o rg an iz atio n ,
resp o n d e d by n am in g th e real c u lp rit— th e biased a n d in v alid SAT.23 In
1979, largely as a resu lt o f lobbying by th e N ad e r o rg an iz atio n . N ew Y ork
S tate passed a tr u th - in - te s tin g law, req u irin g all a d m iss io n s -te st m a k ers to
release th e c o n te n ts a n d answ ers to th e ir tests to th e g en eral p u b lic w ith in a
specified tim e after test ad m in istra tio n . T h e law w as passed over th e o b jec
tio n o f the testin g industry, w hich argued th a t such a law w ould increase
test costs a n d red u ce test validity by p rev e n tin g test m ak ers from reusing
q u e stio n s o f proven w orth. (W h n th e m a k ers o f th e M edical C ollege A d
10
The IQ Controversy
m ission Test [M CAT] th re a te n e d to rem ove th e ir te st from th e state ra th e r
th a n a tte m p t th e nearly im possible task o f c o n s tru c tin g a co m p letely new
a n d equally valid exam on each a d m in istra tio n , th e legislators acq u iesced
by g ran tin g an ex e m p tio n to th e M CAT a n d c e rta in o th e r tests d raw n from
a lim ite d co rp u s o f know ledge.) S im ilar legislation w as su b seq u en tly p ro
posed in the U .S. C ongress, forcing E TS to a n n o u n c e a p o licy o f v o lu n ta ry
d isclosure n atio n w id e in o rd e r to u n d e rc u t w h at th ey feared w ould be an
even h a rsh e r law. (O n e o f th e goals o f th e new o rg an iz atio n FairT est is to get
such a n a tio n a l law passed.)
T h e effect o f pu b lic d eb a te o n ad m issio n s test p ractices is difficult to
gauge. In 1969, B ow doin C ollege in B runsw ick, M ain e, b ecam e th e first
m a jo r college in th e U .S. to sto p req u irin g stu d e n ts to su b m it SAT scores.
W hile it h ard ly caused a tid al wave, B ow doin has been jo in e d by a h an d fu l
o f o th e r colleges in rec en t years. H arv ard C ollege has co n sid ered a ch an g e
in ad m issio n s policy w hereby ap p lic a n ts w ould be able to su b m it ach iev e
m e n t test scores in specified subjects in lieu o f SAT scores. In 1985, th e
H a rv a rd B usiness S chool a n n o u n c e d th a t it w ould no lo n g er req u ire ap p li
c a n ts to su b m it G ra d u a te M a n a g e m e n t A dm issio n Test (G M A T ) scores,
an d Jo h n s H o p k in s M edical S chool a d o p te d th e sam e policy reg ard in g
M CATs. T h e m oves by H a rv a rd a n d Jo h n s H o p k in s m ay be p ro g n o stic, in
light o f these schools’ tra d itio n a l role as bellw eth ers in th e ed u c atio n al
co m m u n ity .
A t p resen t, however, it is n o t clear th a t th e con tro v ersy has h ad m u c h o f
an effect on ad m issio n s test use besides these iso lated in stan ces. F or o n e
th in g , m o st colleges are n o t very selective. W hile v irtu a lly every fo u r-y e a r
college in th e U n ite d S tates req u ires ap p lic a n ts to su b m it eith er SAT o r
A m eric an C ollege T esting (A C T) scores, th e vast m a jo rity o f college ap p li
c a n ts are accep ted by eith er th e ir firs t- o r se c o n d -c h o ic e schools.24 T h u s, it
is o n ly a t a sm all n u m b e r o f th e m o st selective colleges, a n d at g rad u a te a n d
p ro fe ssio n a l schools, th a t a d m issio n s c rite ria are im p o r ta n t a t all. O f
course, th e m o st selective schools are also th o se a ttra c tin g th e m o st ta l
e n te d ap p lica n ts. It th e re fo re often b ecom es necessary for th ese sch o o ls to
decide am o n g a g ro u p o f ap p lica n ts, alm o st all o f w h o m w ould p ro b ab ly
succeed if a d m itte d , o n th e basis o f sm all differences in high school o r
college grades, test scores, o r o th e r factors. W h en ta le n te d stu d e n ts are
d en ied ad m issio n to a p restigious univ ersity p a rtia lly as a resu lt o f a sm all
n u m b e r o f q u e stio n s m issed on a f o u r- h o u r ex am p u rp o rte d to m easu re
“ scholastic a p titu d e ,” c o m p la in ts in ev itab ly will be heard.
T h ere is m o re to th e contro v ersy a b o u t ad m issio n s tests, however, th a n a
h an d fu l o f unsuccessful Ivy L eague ap p lica n ts. T h e ce n tral issue in th e
p u b lic d e b a te over in te llig en c e a n d a p titu d e te stin g is th a t th ese tests,
w h eth e r in th e schools, o n th e jo b , o r in adm issio n s, are being used to
11
allo cate im p o rta n t resources an d o p p o rtu n itie s by ra n k in g people a c co rd
ing to “ in tellig en ce” o r “ a p titu d e ” on th e basis o f a very sm all sam p le o f
behavior. E d u ca tio n a l an d o cc u p atio n al resources are lim ited , a n d d ec i
sio n s a b o u t th e ir allo ca tio n m u st be m ade. T raditionally, A m erican s have
a tte m p te d to m ak e such decisions o n the basis o f m erit, an d tests have been
seen as one objective c riterio n for d oing so. P ublic co n tro v ersy arises w hen
th e tests help p ro d u ce allocative decisions th a t ru n c o u n te r to o u r ideals
a b o u t fair an d eq u itab le tre a tm e n t, nam ely, w hen th e re are significant
g ro u p differences in th e d istrib u tio n o f ed u c atio n al a n d em p lo y m e n t o p
p o rtu n itie s. Elence, th e o u tc ry against Jen sen , th e L a r r y P. d ecisio n , an d
th e c u rre n t em p lo y m e n t testin g clim ate. T h e key to u n d e rsta n d in g th e IQ
co n troversy lies in th e h istorical conflict betw een tw o stran d s in A m erican
th o u g h t, th e desire for increasingly efficient a n d objectiv e assessm ent, an d
th e b elief in h u m a n eq uipotentiality.
Early Developm ents
T h e p u b lic atio n o f C harles D a rw in ’s O n the O rigin o f Species in 1859
w as a sem in al ev en t in the d ev e lo p m e n t o f intelligence a n d ap titu d e tests.
Testing, o f w h atev er form , has as its fu n d a m e n ta l goal th e m e a su re m e n t o f
in d iv id u al differences. Tests o f m en tal ac h ie v em e n t, i.e., know ledge, h ad
been used in th e schools a n d in em p lo y m e n t long befo re D arw in (the
C h inese have had a system o f civil service e x a m in a tio n s for m o re th a n
3,000 years), b u t w ith th e th e o ry o f ev o lu tio n cam e an in te rest in dif
ferences in in n a te ability as well.
D arw in h im self had little to say a b o u t psychological ch aracteristics; he
w as m o re c o n c e rn e d w ith n a tu ra l v ariatio n in physical stru c tu re a n d fu n c
tio n . T h e ap p lica tio n o f D arw in ia n prin cip les to th e psychological realm
th erefo re fell to D a rw in ’s h a lf-c o u s in , F ran cis G alto n . A tru e R en aissan ce
m a n , G a lto n m a d e significant c o n trib u tio n s in the fields o f statistics, m e te
orology, geography, an d crim inology, am o n g others. H e is p ro b ab ly best
k n ow n, however, as th e fo u n d e r o f eugenics, th e b elief th a t h u m a n ity can
be im p ro v ed th ro u g h selective breeding. G a lto n believed th a t im p o rta n t
differences betw een people w ere largely th e resu lt o f differences in in h e rited
abilities. In s u p p o rt o f his thesis, G alto n p u blished a genealogical stu d y in
1869 en title d H ere d ita ry G enius. Selecting a rep rese n tativ e sam p le from
v ario u s d irecto ries o f fam o u s m en, G a lto n in q u ire d in to th e sta tu s o f th e ir
relatives. H e fo u n d a m u c h higher p ro p o rtio n o f em in en c e w ith in th e
fam ilies o f his sam p le th a n w ould be expected by ch an ce. M oreover, th e
clo ser th e relative, th e m o re likely th a t he o r she w as e m in e n t, a n d th e
g reater th e sim ilarity in th e field in w hich em in en c e w as achieved. W hile
recognizing th a t th e relatives o f these high achievers m o st likely sh ared
12
The IQ Controversy
su p e rio r en v iro n m e n ts as well as su p e rio r genes, G a lto n was co n v in ce d
th a t m o st o f th e differences in a c h ie v em e n t betw een m en w ere th e resu lt o f
differences in n a tu ra l ability, p rim a rily intelligence.
W hile biographical d irec to ries prov id ed a useful in d ic a to r o f n a tu ra l
ability, G a lto n n eeded a m o re d irec t m easure. I f eugenics w as to b eco m e a
practical reality, it was necessary to have a m e th o d for id en tify in g th o se
w ith n atu ra l ta le n t a t an early age. In a tte m p tin g to dev elo p such a m e a
sure, G a lto n began w ith th e assu m p tio n , c o n siste n t w ith B ritish em p iricist
tra d itio n , th a t w h at we know is ac q u ired th ro u g h o u r senses. D ifferences in
p ercep tu al speed a n d acu ity m u st th erefo re be cru cial to differences in
intellect. In 1884, initially as p a r t o f th e In te rn a tio n a l H ea lth E x h ib itio n in
L o n d o n , a n d la te r as p a rt o f th e Science M u se u m in S o u th K en sin g to n ,
G a lto n set u p an A n th ro p o m e tric L aboratory. V isitors to th e la b o ra to ry
co u ld , for a sm all fee, have v arious m e asu rem en ts ta k en a n d recorded.
Besides gross physical m e a su re m e n ts o f height, w eight, a n d so fo rth , th e
la b o ra to ry c o n ta in e d n u m e ro u s m e asu res o f n eu ro lo g ical a n d se n so ry
fu n ctio n in g , such as sim ple rea ctio n tim e, visual a n d a u d ito ry sensitivity,
co lo r p erc ep tio n , a n d steadiness o f h an d . F ar from a ca rn iv al sideshow,
G a lto n ’s la b o ra to ry was able to collect reliable d a ta from o ver 9,000 in d i
viduals; th is w as th e first a tte m p t at th e scientific m e a su re m e n t o f in d iv id
ual differences in psychological ch aracteristics. T h e w ork o f su m m arizin g
th ese d a ta by age, sex, etc., a n d o f describ in g th e in te rre la tio n sh ip s betw een
th e v arious m easu res a n d classifications, led to th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f im p o r
ta n t statistical te c h n iq u e s for m easu rin g significance a n d co rrela tio n .
As G alto n was m a k in g his re a c tio n -tim e an d sen so ry m e a su re m e n ts at
S o u th K en sin g to n , th e first im p o rta n t w ork in ex p e rim e n ta l psychology
w as b ein g c o n d u c te d in th e L eip zig la b o ra to rie s o f W ilh e lm W u n d t.
W u n d t used m a n y o f th e sam e m e a su re m e n ts as G alto n , b u t to a d ifferen t
p u rp o se. W u n d t w as interested , n o t in in d iv id u al differences in m e n ta l
fu n ctio n in g , b u t in th e stru c tu re o f th e m in d th a t w as co m m o n to all
in div id u als. O n e o f his stu d e n ts, an A m eric an n a m e d Ja m es M cK een C attell, was in terested in stu d y in g in d iv id u al differen ces in rea ctio n tim e.
W hile u n ab le to in te rest W u n d t in th e idea, C attell h ad h ea rd o f G a lto n ’s
w ork in E ngland an d a rra n g e d to stu d y w ith him . Follow ing his te n u re in
E n gland, C attell re tu rn e d to th e U n iv ersity o f P en n sy lv an ia, w here he
b e c a m e th e w o rld ’s first p ro fe sso r o f p sycholog y (p sy ch o lo g y h ad p re
viously been a sub d iscip lin e o f philosophy). A t P en n , C attell estab lish ed
th e first univ ersity la b o ra to ry d ev o ted to th e psychological m e a su re m e n t o f
in d iv id u al differences, w ork he c o n tin u e d a t C o lu m b ia U niversity. In 1890,
C attell co in ed th e te rm “ m e n ta l tests” to describe th e series o f stren g th ,
se n sa tio n , r e a c tio n - tim e , a n d m e m o ry ta sk s he a n d h is s tu d e n ts d e
velo p ed .25 C a tte ll-ty p e testin g flourished d u rin g th e n ex t decade, w hich
13
saw C attell beco m e th e first c h a irm a n o f the APA’s C o m m itte e on M en tal
a n d Physical Tests.
T h e sensory a n d re a c tio n -tim e ap p ro a ch to m e n tal testin g w as h u rt
badly in 1901 by o n e o f C a tte ll’s ow n g rad u ate stu d en ts, C lark W issler.26 In
th e first c o rrela tio n a l study o f m e n ta l te st results, W issler o b ta in ed m e n ta l
test scores a n d ac ad e m ic grades from over 300 C o lu m b ia a n d B a rn a rd
College stu d en ts. H e fo u n d v irtu ally n o c o rre la tio n betw een m e n tal test
scores a n d ac ad e m ic grades. A p rofessional controv ersy over th e validity o f
th e W issler results an d th e C attell tests e n su e d .27 b u t qu ick ly b ecam e m o o t
as d ev e lo p m e n ts in F ran ce forever ch anged th e face o f m e n tal testing.
In 1895 F ren ch psychologist A lfred B inet an d his stu d e n t V icto r H en ri
p u b lish ed an article in B in et’s new ly fo u n d ed jo u rn a l, L ’A n n é e P sychol
ogique, en title d “ La Psychologie Individuelle." B inet a n d H en ri o u tlin ed
w h at they called an in d iv id u al psychology. W hile g eneral psychology was
c o n c e rn e d w ith th e general p ro p ertie s o f “psychic p rocesses," in d iv id u al
psychology h ad as its aim th e study o f how these processes differ from
in d iv id u al to in d iv id u al, a n d betw een th em selves w ith in th e sam e in d iv id
ual. To th is en d , th e a u th o rs critically e x a m in e d th e th e n m o st p o p u la r
m e th o d for stu d y in g in d iv id u al psychic differences, th e C a tte ll-ty p e tests
o f sim ple sensory a n d m e m o ry processes. T hese tests w ere criticized as
b eing to o n arro w in focus an d to o sim ple to p ro d u ce m ean in g fu l in d iv id
ual differences. B inet a n d H en ri p roposed th a t th e p ro p er m e th o d for
stu d y in g in d iv id u al psychology req u ired a w ide variety o f tests o f different
types in o rd er to give a m o re co m p lete profile o f in d iv id u al psychic fu n c
tio n in g . F urther, th ey argued th a t a t least som e o f these tests m u st ta p th e
h igher m en tal fu n ctio n s, such as im a g in a tio n a n d c o m p re h en sio n , for it is
th e re th a t o n e finds m o st significant in d iv id u al differences. R ecognizing
th a t th e m e a su re m e n t o f these higher fu n ctio n s w ould involve a ce rtain
loss o f p recision as co m p ared to sim ple rea ctio n tim e an d m e m o ry tasks,
th e a u th o rs w ere no n eth eless co n fid e n t th a t th e rich n ess o f th e d a ta w ould
ov ercom e an y obstacles.
T h e B inet an d H en ri article drew th e b a ttle lines q u ite clearly betw een
th e C attell an d B inet schools o f m e n tal testing. As ev id en ce accu m u lated ,
however, it becam e o b vious w here th e fu tu re lay. B inet w as able to draw
su p p o rt from w ork by O e h rn , E bbinghaus, a n d o th ers, show ing th a t m o re
co m p lex m e m o ry tests w ere su p e rio r to sim ple task s in d isc rim in a tin g th e
m e n tal cap ab ilities o f stu d e n ts a n d m e n tal p atien ts. A n 1899 artic le by
S tella S harp, a C o rn ell g rad u a te stu d e n t, directly c o m p ared C a tte ll-ty p e to
B in e t-H e n ri-ty p e tests in an ex p e rim en tal settin g .28 W hile skeptical ab o u t
th e overall value o f in d iv id u al psychology (S harp was a s tu d e n t o f E. B.
T itchener, th e leading A m erican p ro p o n e n t o f W u n d t’s school o f general
psychology). S h arp co n clu d ed th a t th e B in e t-H e n ri ap p ro a ch o f using var-
14
The IQ Controversy
ied tests o f higher m e n tal fu n ctio n s w as su p e rio r in th e id e n tifica tio n o f
in d iv id u al differences.
M o st o f th e d a ta a n d m eth o d o lo g y in favor o f th e B in e t-H e n ri ap p ro a ch
ca m e from B inet him self. T h ro u g h o u t th e 1890s B in et a n d his stu d e n ts
d eveloped tests o f vario u s higher m e n ta l fu n ctio n s such as verbal m em ory,
suggestibility, a n d p ic tu re d escrip tio n , using F ren ch sch o o lch ild re n as su b
jects. In his w ritings, B inet suggested th a t w hen d ealin g w ith h ig h er fac
u ltie s su c h as im a g in a tiv e n e s s , w h e re th e re is n o a b s o lu te sc ale o f
m e a su re m e n t, th e on ly m e an in g fu l te st m easu res are in te rin d iv id u a l. In
o th e r w ords, te st q u estio n s o f th is type m u st be scaled ac co rd in g to how
ex a m in e es actu ally p erfo rm o n th e tasks. A n o th e r m a jo r ad v a n ce in th e
d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e intelligence te st cam e in a 1900 p ap e r by B in et in w hich
he developed a series o f tests fo r “a tte n tio n .” H e first asked a P aris sch o o l
te ac h er for th e five “ m o st in te llig en t” a n d six “least in te llig en t” ch ild ren in
h e r class.29 B inet began w ith a large series o f tests, e lim in a tin g th o se th a t
d id n o t differentiate betw een th e tw o g ro u p s o f ch ild ren . T h e p ractice o f
d irect co m p ariso n to in d e p e n d e n t criteria w as to b ec o m e critical to la ter
in telligence te st d ev elo p m en t.
B in et’s o th e r m a jo r c o n c e rn d u rin g th is p erio d w as th e u n reliab ility o f
th e m e th o d s th e n in use for th e diagnosis a n d classification o f th o se in
h osp itals for th e m e n tally defective a n d for th e id e n tifica tio n o f a b n o rm a l
sc h o o lch ild ren . T hese m e th o d s w ere an y th in g b u t sta n d ard iz ed , v ary in g
w idely from e x a m in e r to exam iner, a n d in c lu d in g such diverse m e asu res as
B in e t- a n d C a tte ll-ty p e m e n tal tests, subjective im p ressio n s o f cleanliness,
a n d m edical ex a m in a tio n s. L ittle a tte m p t h ad been m a d e to regulate th ese
p ractices o r to d e te rm in e if th e tests bein g used w ere in fact related to
in tellectu al fu n ctio n in g . B inet believed th a t he co u ld ap p ly his d ev elo p in g
set o f m en tal tests to these fu n ctio n s in a m o re sy stem atic way.
H is o p p o rtu n ity ca m e in 1904, w hen th e m in iste r o f p u b lic in stru c tio n
set u p a co m m issio n to stu d y th e e d u c a tio n a l p ro b lem s o f s u b n o rm a l
sch o o lch ild re n in Paris. In o rd e r for these ch ild ren to receive th e special
ed u c a tio n th ey need ed , it w as necessary to find an o b jectiv e way o f id e n ti
fying tho se m o st in need o f help. B inet a n d his s tu d e n t T h eo d o re S im o n
w ere charged w ith d eveloping such a test. T h e resu lt o f th e ir efforts, th e
1905 B in e t-S im o n scale, is generally co n sid ered th e first usable intelligence
te st.30
T h e value o f th e B in e t-S im o n scale w as d erived fro m a series o f featu res
B inet h ad been w orking on d u rin g th e p rev io u s decade:
•
T h e test was, as B inet an d S im on called it, a “ M etrical Scale o f In te l
ligence.” T h e th irty test item s w ere arra n g e d in o rd e r o f in creasin g diffi
culty, w ith difficulty levels established th ro u g h sta n d a rd iz a tio n o n b o th
15
n o rm a l a n d s u b n o r m a l c h ild re n aged th re e to elev en in th e P aris
schools.
• T h e test ite m s w ere age graded. It was rep o rted , for ex am p le, th a t th e
average th re e -y e a r-o ld m ade it th ro u g h item 9, w hile fiv e -y e a r-o ld s
co rrectly answ ered item s th ro u g h n u m b e r 14 (sta n d a rd iz a tio n w as only
p rovided for o d d -n u m b e re d years in the 1905 scale). Test scores w ere
th u s re p o rte d n o t in te rm s o f an ab so lu te level o f intelligence, b u t by
c o m p arin g a s tu d e n t’s m e n tal age (a g e -e q u iv a le n t o f highest q u estio n
answ ered correctly) to his o r h er chronological age. R e ta rd a tio n o r a d
v an c em en t was re p o rte d in years. (In o rd er to elim in a te n o n lin e arities
in th is m e th o d o f rep o rtin g te st scores— a fiv e -y e a r-o ld p e rfo rm in g at
th e th re e -y e a r-o ld level is actu ally m o re reta rd e d th a n an e le v e n -y e a rold w ho tests as a n in e -y e a r -o ld — G e rm a n psychologist W illiam S tern ,
in 1911, p ro p o sed th e use o f th e “ m e n ta l q u o tie n t,” in w hich a ch ild ’s
m en tal age is d iv id ed by his o r her chron o lo g ical age.31 T oday’s in te l
ligence q u o tie n t, o r IQ, is deriv ed from th is m easu re, a n d is essentially
th e m en tal q u o tie n t m u ltip lie d by 100.) It w as th e g en iu s o f B inet to
sta n d ard iz e m e n tal age. B inet u n d e rsto o d th a t intelligence, w h atev er it
is, increases d u rin g ch ild h o o d , an d th a t it is m o re fru itfu l for a p sy ch o l
ogy o f in d iv id u al differences to c o n c e n tra te o n relativ e levels o f in te l
ligence th a n to try to m easu re such a n eb u lo u s c o n c ep t in ab so lu te
term s.
• T h e scale item s tested a w ide variety o f sim ple a n d h ig h er m e n tal fu n c
tio n s in o rd e r to provide a m o re co m p lete p ic tu re o f th e c h ild ’s in te lle c
tu a l fu n ctio n in g . T h u s, for exam ple, item 1 m e asu red sim p le visual
co o rd in a tio n , in w hich th e child h ad to m ove head an d eyes in o rd er to
follow a lighted m a tch passed before th e eyes. In ite m 5, th e ch ild was
req u ired to rem ove a p ap e r w rap p er from a piece o f ch o co late. Item 11
asked ch ild ren to rep e at a series o f th ree digits follow ing oral p re se n ta
tio n . Item 20 ask ed fo r th e rese m b la n ce betw een g ro u p s o f v ario u s
n a m e d objects, such as a w ild pop p y a n d b lood , o r an a n t, a fly, a n d a
butterfly. Item 30, th e m o st difficult in th e scale, asked for th e d istin ctio n
betw een such ab stra ct te rm s as “ lik in g ” a n d “ respecting.” T h e te st th u s
p rovided a m easu re o f general in tellectu al capacity, ra th e r th a n o f th e
m o re specific fu n ctio n s m e asu red by ea rlier tests develo p ed by B inet an d
others.
T h e m o st im p o rta n t featu re o f th e B in e t-S im o n scale, o f course, was
th a t it w orked. T h e 1905 scale, a n d even m o re so its 1908 revision, proved
to be ex trem ely useful for identifying th e retard ed . In a d d itio n , th e B in e tS im o n scale p rovided a general r a n k -o rd e rin g o f n o rm a l a n d su b n o rm a l
stu d e n ts th a t w as co n siste n t w ith o th e r in d ic ato rs o f intelligence such as
te a c h e r a n d p eer e v a lu a tio n s a n d ease o f trainability , b u t d id so in a m o re
efficient an d reliable m a n n e r th a n th e o th e r m easures.
Typical o f th e reactio n to th e scales w as th a t o f H. H. G o d d a rd , w ho in
16
The IQ Controversy
1910 tran slate d th e 1908 scale in to E nglish for use in th e U n ite d S tates. A t
first skeptical th a t o n e co u ld m easu re global in tellig en ce in th e ex act way
B inet an d S im o n p roposed, G o d d a rd w as am az ed by th e scale’s accu racy
w hen he began to use it a t his V in elan d , N ew Jersey school for feeble
m in d e d children.
A n o th e r A m eric an psychologist p a rtic u la rly im p ressed by th e B in e tS im o n scales w as Lew is T erm an . As a g ra d u a te stu d e n t a t C lark U niversity,
T erm an h ad been w orking o n his ow n intelligence scale b ased o n h igher
m e n ta l processes w hen th e first B in e t-S im o n scale w as p u b lish ed . In 1916,
as a p rofessor o f psychology a t S tan fo rd U niversity, T erm a n p u b lish ed th e
S tan fo rd R evision o f th e B in e t-S im o n scale,32 b ased p artially on his ow n
w ork a n d p artially on th e final 1911 revision (B in et died in th a t year) o f th e
B in e t-S im o n . T e rm a n ’s test, w hich in its su b se q u en t revision has c o m e to
be k now n as th e S ta n fo rd -B in e t, b ecam e th e sta n d a rd by w hich all later
intelligence tests have been judged.
The Army Tests and the First Controversy
T h e great need for reliable selection devices an d th e en th u sia sm o f th e
early A m erican m e n tal testers very q uickly led to w id esp read in telligence
te st use in th e U n ite d States in th e years before W orld W ar I. T h e m o st
c o m m o n use w as for th e screening o f ch ild ren a n d th e id e n tifica tio n o f th e
fe e b le -m in d e d in pu b lic a n d priv ate schools. In tellig en ce tests w ere also
a d m in iste re d in o th e r in stitu tio n s, in c lu d in g ho sp itals, p riso n s a n d in san e
asy lu m s. M a n y o f th ese in s titu tio n a l a p p lic a tio n s w ere s m a ll-s c a le re
search projects, however. L arg e-sc ale intelligence a n d a p titu d e te stin g in
th e school an d w orkplace w as p rec lu d ed by th e expensive a n d tim e - c o n
su m in g n a tu re o f in d iv id u al te st a d m in istra tio n .
T h e sta tu s o f m e n tal testin g ch anged d ram a tic ally w ith th e first la rg e scale usage o f gro u p intelligence tests d u rin g W orld W ar I. T h e d ev elo p
m e n t o f intelligence tests alo n g th e B in e t-S im o n m o d el th a t co u ld be
ad m in iste re d to a large g ro u p sim u lta n eo u sly h ad been progressing slowly
in th e years p receding th e war. A s early as 1910, B in et a n d S im o n h ad
discussed th e feasibility o f g ro u p testing o f a rm y rec ru its.33 T h e m o st n o ta
ble progress w as m ad e by A rth u r O tis, a s tu d e n t o f T e rm a n ’s at S tan fo rd ,
w ho in 1917 dev eloped an objectively scored p a p e r -a n d -p e n c il test th a t
T erm a n claim ed p ro d u ce d scores alm o st id en tical to th e in d iv id u a lly -a d
m in iste re d S ta n fo rd -B in e t.34 O tis’ test served as an im p o rta n t m o d el for
th e W orld W ar I A rm y exam s. W hen th e U n ite d States e n te re d th e w ar in
1917, R o b e rt Y erkes o f H arv ard , th e n p resid e n t o f th e APA, q u ick ly m o b i
lized psychologists to aid th e w ar effort, a n d to p ro m o te th e u sefulness o f
th e ir n ascen t en terp rise. A m o n g th e c o m m itte e s fo rm e d w as o n e ch a ired
17
by Yerkes, on M e th o d s o f Psychological E x am in in g o f R ecru its. Y erkes
assem bled in V in elan d , N ew Jersey a gro u p o f A m eric a’s leading m e n ta l
testers, in c lu d in g T erm a n a n d G o d d a rd , for the p u rp o se o f d ev elo p in g a
g ro u p -a d m in is te re d test th a t w ould aid in p lacing rec ru its in to ap p ro p ria te
jo b s a n d co u ld id en tify tho se in c o m p e te n t to serve. T h e results o f th e ir
efforts, as accep ted for use by th e arm y, w ere th e A lp h a a n d B eta exam s.
T h e A lpha c o n ta in e d q u estio n s in such areas as a rith m etica l reasoning,
n u m b e r series c o m p le tio n , a n d an a lo g ie s— categ o ries sim ila r to th o se
fo u n d in the S ta n fo rd -B in e t a n d m an y p re se n t-d a y intelligence tests. T h e
Beta, in te n d ed for use w ith illiterate recruits, co n ta in e d sim ila r q u estio n s,
b u t in purely p icto rial form .
Yerkes, an d th e A rm y D ivision o f P sychology th a t he h ead ed , supervised
th e a d m in istra tio n o f th e A lpha a n d B eta to nearly 2 m illio n A rm y re
cru its. T h e im p a c t these test results h ad o n th e w ar effort is u n ce rtain .
W hile nearly 8,000 recru its w ere re c o m m e n d e d for disch arg e as m en tally
in c o m p e te n t, a n d th o u sa n d s o f o th ers w ere assigned ac co rd in g to th e ir test
scores,35 m an y A rm y officers w ere skeptical o f th e su d d e n ly u b iq u ito u s
m e n tal testers an d th e ir “ scientific” in stru m e n ts a n d refused to use the
results. N onetheless, th a t Y erkes a n d his g ro u p o f testers w ere able to
d ev elop th e tests a n d organize th e ir a d m in istra tio n to so m a n y recru its
u n d e r w a rtim e c o n d itio n s d e m o n stra te d th e feasibility o f larg e-scale g ro u p
in telligence testing.
T h e success o f th e A rm y tests, at least from a logistical perspective, a n d
th e experience gained in develo p in g these a n d m o re specific a p titu d e tests
d u rin g th e war, tra n sfo rm e d psychology from an ac ad e m ic d iscip lin e in to a
profession. A fter th e war, th e new g ro u p -te stin g tech n o lo g y w as ap p lied on
a regular basis in schools a n d industry. T h e rapidly ex p a n d in g an d ch a n g
ing A m erican p o p u la tio n an d social stru c tu re o f th e first p a rt o f th is c e n
tu ry created a d esp erate need for efficient selection tools, a n d th e m en tal
testers were only to o h ap p y to help o u t. M en tal testing, to u te d as th e
scientific so lu tio n to selection prob lem s, fit nicely w ith p o p u la r Progressive
ideas o f reshaping society th ro u g h th e ratio n al a p p lica tio n o f science. By
1921, 2 m illion A m erican sch o o lch ild ren w ere being tested by on e o r a n
o th e r gro u p intelligence test, m ostly for p la c e m e n t in h o m o g e n eo u s class
r o o m s ( t r a c k i n g ) .36 A d d itio n a lly , i n d i v i d u a l l y - a d m i n i s t e r e d te s ts
c o n tin u e d to be w idely used for th e id e n tifica tio n a n d p la ce m en t o f spe
c ia l-n e e d s stu d en ts.
T h e ap p lica tio n o f the new selection to o ls after W orld W ar I w as p ar
ticu larly ev id en t in em p lo y m e n t, w here th e e n th u sia sm w ith w hich m an y
em ployers accepted intelligence tests reflected a p erc ep tio n o f th e tests as
m a jo r too ls o f efficiency. In th e years im m ed ia te ly follow ing th e war, h u n
d red s o f c o m p an ie s began to use co m m ercially available tests to m ak e
18
The IQ Controversy
e m p lo y m e n t decisions, w hile on ly a h an d fu l o f firm s d ev o ted th e reso u rces
necessary to develop p ro p e r testin g p ro g ra m s.37 T h is sta te o f affairs w as
p artially th e resu lt o f sa lesm an sh ip by m a n y o f th e m e n ta l testers, w ho
w ere an x io u s to ap p ly th e ir new technology, even in cases w here, as so m e o f
th e ir colleagues w arn ed , tests h ad n o t been sufficiently v alid ated fo r th e
uses to w hich th ey w ere being put.
Besides p u ttin g psychology o n th e m ap, th e A rm y tests h ad a n o th e r
co n seq u en ce: they set off th e first p u b lic contro v ersy a b o u t in telligence
testing. T h e A rm y d a ta revealed th a t m e m b ers o f im m ig ra n t gro u p s, o n th e
average, scored low er th a n n a tiv e -b o rn A m erican s, a n d th a t im m ig ra n ts
from so u th e rn a n d e a ste rn E u ro p e (w ho w ere in g eneral m o re recen t a rriv
als) scored low er th a n th o se from n o rth e rn a n d w estern E u ro p e. Black
rec ru its scored low est o f all. M oreover, based o n th e ag e -g ra d e d sta n d a rd s
in use, th e average m e n tal age o f all A rm y rec ru its w as 13.
T h e im m ig ra n t d a ta w ere seized u p o n by C arl B righam , an assistan t
p rofessor o f psychology a t P rin c eto n , w hose 1923 b o o k A S tu d y o f A m e r
ican Intellig en ce is a racist treatise by an y sta n d ard . B righam arg u ed th a t
th e A rm y d a ta d e m o n stra te d th e w e ll-k n o w n in ferio rity o f th o se o f M ed i
te rra n e a n stock, as c o m p ared to th e N o rd ic races o f n o r th e r n E u ro p e. H is
co n c lu sio n w as th a t th e U n ite d States m u st restrict im m ig ra tio n from
so u th e rn a n d e a ste rn E u ro p e in o rd er to keep th e A m eric an gene pool
fro m d eterio ratin g . W hile B rig h a m ’s b o o k a p p a re n tly h ad little in flu en ce in
p olitical circles, it is evidence th a t th e sam e racism a n d x e n o p h o b ia th a t
p ro d u c e d th e restric tio n ist Im m ig ra tio n A ct o f 1924 w ere am en a b le to th e
te stin g d ata. Sim ilarly, p o p u la r eugenicist w riters w ere q u ic k to p o in t to th e
average m e n ta l ability o f A rm y recru its (despite th e A rm y testers’ ow n
w arn in g s th a t th e n u m b e rs sh o u ld n o t be in te rp re te d to o literally) as a
w arn in g th a t we m u st a c t q u ick ly to im prove o u r b ree d in g stock. (T h e
A rm y d a ta fit nicely w ith th e increasingly p o p u la r A m eric an eugenics
m o v em en t; by th e m id 1930s, 24 states h ad laws m a n d a tin g sterilizatio n
for th o se w ith c e rta in h eritab le defects, in c lu d in g fe e b le -m in d e d n e ss.)38
T h e rea ctio n o f m a n y w ho fo u n d th e co n c lu sio n s b ein g d raw n fro m th e
A rm y results a b h o rre n t w as to a tta c k n o t on ly th e co n c lu sio n s b u t th e tests
them selves.
C e rta in c o n te m p o ra ry critics, m o st n o ta b ly S tep h en Jay G o u ld in T h e
M ism e a su r e o f M a n a n d L eon K am in in T h e S cien ce a n d P olitics o f IQ ,
have sought to a tta c k th e testin g edifice by exposing its racist fo u n d atio n s.
T h e y arg u e th a t th e early m e n ta l te ste rs p ro p a g a te d in te llig en c e tests
largely as a m e an s o f d e m o n stra tin g th e in h e re n t su p e rio rity o f m id d le a n d u p p e r-c la ss w hites, a n d th a t to d a y ’s tests a n d th o se w h o s u p p o rt th em
rep rese n t th e sam e agenda. A c o m m o n ta ctic used by such w riters is to
describe in detail o n e ex tre m e case, like B righam , a n d th e n argue th a t it is
19
ty p ical o f th e m e n ta l-te s tin g c o m m u n ity as a w hole. In fact, racism was
p ro b ab ly less c o m m o n am o n g th e early m e n tal testers th a n am o n g th e rest
o f th e p o p u la tio n o f th e tim e. O n ce testin g e n te re d its p erio d o f m o st rap id
a n d so p h isticated d e v e lo p m e n t in th e 1930s, th e re is no longer ev idence o f
racist influence. T h e long h isto ry o f a tte m p ts by m a in stre a m p sy c h o m etri
cian s to develop c u ltu re -fa ir tests is o n e in d ic a tio n th a t tests have been
m o re th a n too ls for m a in ta in in g th e sta tu s quo.
F re q u en tly q u o te d in ac c o u n ts o f th e in h e re n t racism o f testin g is K am in ’s d escrip tio n o f H. H . G o d d a rd ’s assessm ent o f new ly arriv in g im m i
g ran ts a t Ellis Island: “ 83% o f th e Jews, 80% o f th e H u n g aria n s, 79% o f th e
Italian s, an d 87% o f the R ussian s w ere ‘feeblem in d ed .’”39 G o d d a rd does
in d eed re p o rt these n u m b e rs, b u t K am in a n d tho se w h o cite h im fail to tell
th e ir readers th a t G o d d a rd d id n o t believe th e g ro u p s tested to be rep rese n
ta tiv e o f im m ig ra n ts from th o se co u n tries, n o r was he w illing to a ttrib u te
th e ir fe e b le -m in d e d n e ss to genetic causes.40 It is also n o t th e case th a t th e
A rm y testing d a ta w ere in an y way im p o rta n t to th e passage o f th e Im m i
g ratio n A ct o f 1924, rep o rts by S tep h en Jay G o u ld an d L eo n K am in n o t
w ith stan d in g . A n ex a m in a tio n o f th e relev an t legislative h isto ry reveals
th a t th e A ct w ould have been passed had the testin g d a ta n ev er ex isted .41
T h a t th e G o u ld /K a m in h isto ry is so u n critically re p o rte d in th e new s
m edia a n d elsew here is a n o th e r ex am p le o f th e pervasiveness o f a n ti
testin g se n tim e n t today.
T h e p o st-W o rld W ar I m e n ta l-te stin g co m m u n ity , w hile obviously n o t
w illing to c o n d e m n te stin g as a w hole, co u ld be fo u n d o n b o th sides o f th e
d eb a te over th e A rm y d ata. M an y psychologists a n d e d u c a to rs w ere critical
o f B righam ’s b o o k a n d o f tho se w ho w ould draw stro n g co n c lu sio n s from
th e obviously flawed A rm y tests.42 It w as p o in te d o u t, for ex am p le, th a t on
six o f the eight subtests o f th e A lpha th e m o st c o m m o n score w as zero, an
in d ic a tio n th a t th e test was to o difficult, a n d th erefo re m ean in g less as a
m easu re o f intelligence. T h o u g h in te n d e d as m easu res o f n ativ e ability, it
w as clear th a t th e tests w ere to o d e p e n d e n t o n specific c u ltu ral know ledge,
a flaw p a rtic u la rly o n ero u s to rec en t im m ig ran ts. P hysical c o n d itio n s var
ied across test a d m in istra tio n s, often involving c ra m p e d q u a rte rs a n d in a d
e q u a te lighting an d acoustics. M ental age ca lc u latio n s w ere b ased o n a
su p p o sed ad u lt m e n tal age o f sixteen, even th o u g h few o f th e recru its had
a tte n d e d school past th e age o f fo u rte en . M any critics also p o in te d o u t th a t
test scores o f im m ig ra n t g roups w ere higher th e longer th e g ro u p s h ad been
in th is co untry, in d ic atin g th a t m u c h o f th e low scores o f th ese g ro u p s co u ld
be a ttrib u te d to an u n fam iliarity w ith A m eric an cu ltu re. B righam h ad
ta k en these d a ta to m ean th a t recent im m ig ra n t g ro u p s w ere in n a tely less
in tellig en t th a n ea rlier ones.
In co n tra st to tho se b o th in an d o u t o f th e psychological c o m m u n ity
20
The IQ Controversy
w ho a tta c k e d th e A rm y te sts a n d th e ir in te rp re ta tio n s , Y erkes h im s e lf
w rote th e forew ord to B rig h am ’s b ook, n o tin g th a t “ [t]he a u th o r p resen ts
n o t th e o ries o r o p in io n b u t fact.”43 M oreover, m a n y early psychologists
w ere ce rtain ly a m e n a b le to th e idea o f in n a te differences in intelligence
betw een racial a n d so c io -e c o n o m ic groups. W hile n o t co n v in ced by th e
A rm y d ata, T erm a n w arn ed in 1922 th a t “ N o n a tio n ca n afford to overlook
th e d an g e r th a t th e average q u a lity o f its g erm plasm m ay g rad u ally d e te rio
rate as a resu lt o f u n re stric te d im m ig ratio n .”44 H e also arg u ed , in discussing
th e resu lts o f th e o rig in a l s ta n d a rd iz a tio n te sts o f th e S ta n fo rd -B in e t,
“ [t]h a t the ch ild ren o f th e su p e rio r social classes m ak e a b e tte r show ing in
th e tests is p ro b ab ly due, fo r th e m o st p a rt, to a su p e rio r o rig in al en d o w
m e n t.”45 R e g ard in g racial differen ces, T e rm a n h y p o th e siz e d th a t w h en
p ro p e r ex p e rim en ts o n A m eric an In d ian , M exican , a n d N egro in telligence
w ere c o n d u c te d “ th e re will be discovered en o rm o u sly significant racial
differences in general intelligence, differences w hich c a n n o t be w iped o u t
by an y sch em e o f m e n ta l cu ltu re.”46
T h e lo u d e st p o p u la r voice raised again st th e m e n ta l te stin g m o v e m en t
w as th a t o f W alter L ip p m a n n . In a series o f articles in th e N e w R ep u b lic in
1922 a n d 1923, L ip p m a n n p resen ted w h at th e N e w R ep u b lic e d ito rs called
a n “ analysis a n d e stim a te o f intelligence tests.”47 L ip p m a n n ’s p rim a ry ta r
get w as th e idea th a t intelligence tests w ere m easu res o f in n a te m e n tal
ability, o r o f “ in tellig en ce” for th a t m atter. H e believed th a t th is id ea was
bein g sold to th e p u b lic by elitists (w hat he called th e “ N ew S n o b b ery ” )
atte m p tin g to m a in ta in th e sta tu s q u o (th en , as now, te st scores are higher
in th e u p p e r classes), an d by p o w e r-h u n g ry psychologists w ho, w ith o ne
ex a m in a tio n , w ould be able to asce rta in a c h ild ’s im m u ta b le m e n tal c a p ac
ities. T h e N e w R ep u b lic p u b lish ed a reply to L ip p m a n n by T erm an , w ho,
th o u g h su rprisingly sarcastic in to n e, w as reaso n ab le in su b stan ce. H e ex
p la in ed th a t n o psychologist believed th e tests to be p u re m easu res o f
m e n ta l ability (th o u g h to be sure genes w ere th e m o st im p o rta n t factor),
a n d th a t w hile ce rta in ly n o t perfect, intelligence tests w ere q u ite useful in
d o in g th e k in d s o f things o n e w ould expect an in telligence te st to do. O n e
d o u b ts, however, th a t T e rm a n ’s m e a n -sp irite d n e ss (in resp o n se to L ip p
m a n n ’s suggestion th a t e n v iro n m e n ta l influences early in life m ig h t have a
significant effect o n intelligence, T erm a n pro p o sed th a t L ip p m a n n begin
an investig atio n o f th e IQ effects o f “d ifferent versions o f M o th e r G o o se ” )48
d id h im m u ch good in th e p u b lic rela tio n s war.
T h e wave o f p u b lic d eb a te set off by th e A rm y d a ta e n d e d by th e m id
1920s, b u t th e issues ad d ressed — h ered ity vs. e n v iro n m e n t, th e n a tu re o f
in tellig en ce, a n d th e p ro p e r uses o f te stin g — have re m a in e d im p o r ta n t
w ith in professional circles, an d , d u rin g th e past tw en ty -fiv e years, have
again en tered th e p u b lic consciousness.
21
As p u b lic attac k s on m e n tal tests w ere subsiding, th e te stin g m o v e m en t
was evolving from a largely ex p e rim en tal en terp rise in to a w ell-estab lish ed
professional endeavor. T h e 1920s an d 30s saw a p ro liferatio n o f in te l
ligence a n d specific a p titu d e tests. T erm an p u blished his first revision o f th e
S ta n fo rd -B in e t, invo lv in g a sta n d a rd iz a tio n sam ple o f over 3,000 ad u lts
an d ch ild ren , in 1937.49 Two years later, D avid W echsler p u b lish ed his first
intelligence test, w hich w as to becom e th e W echsler A d u lt Intelligence
Scale, th e m o st w idely used in d iv id u a lly -a d m in is te re d intelligence test for
a d u lts.50 T h is p erio d w as also n o ta b le for th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f so p h isticated
statistical te ch n iq u e s for d e te rm in in g th e reliability a n d validity o f tests,
th e in tro d u c tio n o f m a c h in e -s c o rin g te ch n iq u e s, an d th e first larg e-scale
a d o p tio n an d tw in studies for system atically investig atin g th e relative roles
o f h ered ity a n d e n v iro n m e n t in intelligence. A dditionally, several jo u rn a ls
a n d p ro fe ssio n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s d ev o ted to p sych o lo g ical m e a su re m e n t
w ere fou n d ed , as w ere n u m e ro u s te st-p u b lish in g firm s d ed icated to th e
d ev e lo p m e n t a n d d issem in a tio n o f psychological tests (by 1936 th ere were
at least 96 different firm s p u b lish in g tests).51 As a resu lt o f th is increasin g
p ro fessio n alizatio n , a general declin e in D arw in ia n e x p lan a tio n s o f b e
havioral p h e n o m e n a , an d p erh a p s also because o f th e ir ea rlier ex p erien ces
in th e pu b lic d o m a in , tho se w ho developed a n d stu d ied intelligence tests
b ec am e less bold in th e ir p ro c la m a tio n s a b o u t in n a te m e n ta l ab ility an d
th e sources o f g ro u p differences in IQ. E ven B righam a d m itte d in 1930 th a t
o n e can m ak e no stro n g claim s a b o u t gro u p differences in in tellig en ce.52
T h e p ublic seem ed to pay little a tte n tio n to an y o f th ese d ev elo p m en ts,
ex cept in so far as th ey fo u n d tests beco m in g an increasingly c o m m o n p a rt
o f th e ir lives.
World War II and the Awakening o f Public C onsciousness
T h e p o te n tia l d e m o n stra te d by th e A rm y tests o f W orld W ar I w as real
ized d u rin g th e S econd W orld War, w hen th e U .S. a rm e d forces engaged in
a m assive testin g program . M ore th a n 9 m illion rec ru its to o k th e A rm y
G en e ra l C lassification Test (A G C T), a test o f general a p titu d e th a t, in te r
estingly, th e new breed o f A rm y testers w as very careful n o t to call an
in te llig en ce test. U n lik e th e A rm y A lp h a a n d B eta, th e A G C T clearly
played an im p o rta n t role in selection a n d classification. M oreover, specific
a p titu d e tests, like those given by th e A ir F orce to screen p o te n tia l pilots,
p roved to be tre m e n d o u sly useful in fu n n elin g th o se m o st q u alified in to
expensive a n d tim e -c o n s u m in g tra in in g p ro g ra m s.53 As in W orld W ar I,
th e general p erc ep tio n , p erh a p s m o re a c cu rate follow ing th e S econd W orld
War, w as th a t th e testin g estab lish m e n t h ad d e m o n stra te d th a t tests o f
m e n tal ability w ere efficient d e c isio n -m a k in g tools.
22
The IQ Controversy
A fter th e war, th e grow th o f testin g c o n tin u e d a t a rap id pace. In th e
schools, intelligence tests b ecam e a regular p a rt o f th e c u rric u lu m , w here
th ey w ere used to segregate stu d e n ts by ability a n d for ed u c atio n al an d
career g uidance. In a 1949 artic le in th e N ew York T im e s M a g a zin e, B en
ja m in F in e estim a ted th a t 20 m illion sch o o lch ild re n w ould be ta k in g in te l
ligence tests d u rin g th e u p co m in g school year.54 In college ad m issio n s, th e
SAT (in tro d u c e d in 1926 a n d req u ired by on ly a sm all fractio n o f colleges
a n d universities b efore th e w ar) w as ad o p ted , alo n g w ith th e ACT, by nearly
every school in th e n atio n . D u rin g th e w ar years, th e C EEB , sp o n so rs o f th e
SAT, d ro p p e d th e ir ea rlier essay -ty p e a c h ie v em e n t te st to c o n c e n tra te on
th e m u ltip le -c h o ic e SAT. T h e SAT w as in te n d e d to be less d e p e n d e n t on
an y fixed c u rric u lu m th a n an a c h ie v em e n t test, a n d th u s m o re eq u itab le.
P erhaps th e largest effect o f th e w artim e testin g p ro g ra m w as felt in
e m p lo y m e n t. Surveys o f A m erican in d u stry by W alter D ill S co tt fo u n d
th a t th e percen tag e o f c o m p an ie s using intelligence tests for h irin g a n d
p ro m o tio n in creased from 26 p erc en t in 1940 to 63 p e rc e n t in 1957.55 T h e
g o v ern m e n t helped, as th e new ly fo u n d ed U n ite d S tates E m p lo y m e n t Serv
ice m a d e tests available at n o cost to em ployers, a n d w ould even dev elo p
a n d sta n d ard iz e special tests in re tu rn for d a ta su p p lied to th e g o v ern m en t.
T h e e n larg em e n t o f intelligence a n d a p titu d e te stin g in em p lo y m e n t
after th e w ar follow ed a d eclin e in such testin g d u rin g th e 1920s a n d 1930s.
In d u strial leaders o f th e first p a r t o f th e c e n tu ry h ad failed to heed th e
w arn in g s o f im p ro p e r v alid atio n , a n d q uickly fo u n d th a t th e ir u n v alid ated
tests w eren ’t w orking. T h e H aw th o rn e W orks p ro jec t o f th e late 1920s, th e
first la rg e -scale so c ial-sc ien c e stu d y o f in d u stria l pro d u ctiv ity , co n firm ed
w h at em ployers w ere b eg in n in g to realize: th a t m o tiv a tio n a l a n d social
factors are as im p o rta n t to c e rta in k in d s o f p ro d u ctiv ity as is ab ility or
e x tern al incentives. M ilita ry testin g d u rin g th e S eco n d W orld W ar o n ce
again co n v in ced em ployers o f th e usefulness o f intelligence a n d a p titu d e
tests. Ironically, th e re en su ed a n o th e r p ro liferatio n o f co m m ercially avail
able em p lo y m e n t tests, an d o v eren th u siasm a b o u t test use o n th e p a r t o f
b o th em p lo y ers a n d te st m a k ers. As before, m a n y in th e te stin g field
w arn ed th a t e m p lo y m e n t tests w ere being o verused .56
T h e original p ro m ise o f intelligence tests was as a to o l for in creased
efficiency in ed u c a tio n a n d em p lo y m e n t. In th e p o stw ar e n v iro n m e n t, tests
held o u t a new hope: th e m e an s for achieving a m o re d e m o c ra tic society
th ro u g h th e u n b iased search for ability. Tests b ecam e a to o l for ach iev in g a
social o rd e r based n o t o n privilege o r w ealth, b u t on m e rit an d ability.57
D u rin g W orld W ar I, th e validity o f th e tests w as co n firm e d by th e fact th a t
officers, w ho w ere “ obv io u sly ” m o re in telligent, o u tsc o re d en listed m e n on
th e A rm y tests. B ut th e A m eric an m o o d h ad sh ifted by th e en d o f W orld
W ar II, an d th e em p h asis o n m e rit coexisted u neasily w ith a grow ing c o n
23
sensus am o n g b o th th e pu b lic a n d professionals th a t ability was eq u ally
d istrib u te d am o n g all g ro u p s a n d social classes. It is n o t su rp risin g , in th e
era o f B row n v. th e B o a rd o f E d u c a tio n , th a t a 1956 poll o f A m eric an
a ttitu d e s to w ard d eseg reg atio n fo u n d th a t a lm o st 80 p e rc e n t o f w h ite
A m eric an s believed blacks to be th e ir in te lle ctu al equals, co m p ared to o nly
h a lf as m a n y w ho believed th e sam e th in g in 1942.58 T h e c o n tra d ic tio n
betw een th e new view a n d th e reality o f g ro u p differences in test scores was
resolved by th e assu m p tio n th a t, as racial d isc rim in a tio n declin ed , m in o r
ity g roups w ould o b ta in scores on vario u s m easu res o f intelligence an d
ach ie v em e n t eq u al to th o se o f o th e r groups. T h u s, in tellig en ce tests w ere
p erceived as progressive in stru m e n ts fo r help in g th e u n d erp riv ileg ed to
th e ir rightful place.
T h e 1949 N ew York T im e s M a g a zin e artic le by F in e is in stru c tiv e as a
b a ro m e te r o f th e p o p u la r m o o d tow ard intelligence testing. E n titled “ M o re
a n d M ore, th e IQ Idea Is Q u e stio n e d ,” it is a rare (for th e tim e) p o p u la r
c ritiq u e o f testing, an d a n excellent ex am p le o f th e ex cep tio n p ro v in g th e
rule. F in e w as w orried a b o u t ov errelian ce o n intelligence te st scores a t th e
expense o f m o tiv a tio n a l variables in p red ic tin g stu d e n t p erfo rm an ce . Fie
says o f IQ tests, “ Today . . . it is im possible to exaggerate th e ir c o n tin u e d
influence o n A m eric an te ac h in g m ethods.” 59 A fter citin g n u m e ro u s in
stances o f stu d e n ts o u tp e rfo rm in g th e ir IQs, a n d ex h o rtin g ed u c ato rs n o t
to p u t to o m u c h faith in im p erfect in stru m e n ts. F in e ’s d am ag in g c o n
clu sio n is: “ In th e classroom a p u p il’s capacity for le arn in g , even if gauged
o nly approxim ately , is one o f th e m o st im p o rta n t facts we can know a b o u t
h im a n d if IQ tests show a te a c h e r w h at to expect in classro o m p erfo r
m a n ce th e n they have a definite validity. O nly at all tim es we m u st re
m e m b e r th a t they c a n n o t be relied u p o n exclusively.”60
A cc o m p an y in g th e generally favorable a ttitu d e s to w ard intelligence te st
ing o f th e postw ar p u b lic w as a lack o f c o n c e rn for th e g ro u p difference
issue, a subject th a t had b een so im p o rta n t in ea rlier p u b lic d eb ate a b o u t
testing, an d w ould be again. T h e only m e n tio n o f g ro u p differences in
intelligence in th e F ine article is a discussion o f a tte m p ts by U n iv ersity o f
C h ica g o so c io lo g ist A llison D avis to d ev e lo p m o re c u ltu r e - f a ir tests.
R a th e r th a n attac k in g intelligence tests as biased. F ine m e n tio n s D avis’
w ork m erely as an in d ic a tio n th a t o th e r factors besides n ativ e m e n tal ab il
ity can affect a y o u n g ster’s score. (In th e p rofessio n al co m m u n ity , D avis’
w ork, like th a t o f m a n y o th e rs w ho a tte m p te d to dev elo p c u ltu re -fre e or
c u ltu re -fa ir tests, was generally seen as a noble b u t failed a tte m p t— he was
n ev er able to develop a test th a t significantly red u ced so c io eco n o m ic d if
ferences in test score b u t w as still p redictive o f acad em ic success.)
F u rth e r evidence th a t gro u p differences in intelligence w ere n o t a signifi
c a n t p u b lic issue is the lack o f p u b lic rea ctio n to th e article “ Psychological
24
The IQ Controversy
T ests-A S cien tist’s R e p o rt o n R ace D ifferences” in U.S. N ew s a n d W orld
R ep o rt in 1956.61 V illanova psychology professo r F ra n k M c G u rk arg u ed
th a t th e significant b la c k -w h ite IQ difference a p p a re n t in th e A rm y tests o f
W orld W ar I h ad n o t d ecreased a t all d u rin g th e follow ing fo rty years,
d esp ite vast im p ro v e m e n t in th e social a n d e c o n o m ic c o n d itio n s o f black
A m ericans. H is co n c lu sio n w as th a t th e IQ difference co u ld n o t be a t
trib u te d to in fe rio r black e n v iro n m e n t.
U n lik e th e public, th e professional c o m m u n ity was n o t w illing to ignore
such sta te m en ts. A m o n th afte r th e M c G u rk piece, U.S. N ew s ran a tw o page sta te m e n t signed by eighteen social scientists in w hich th ey d en ied
th a t th e re was sufficient scientific evidence to ju stify th e co n c lu sio n o f
significant genetic g ro u p differences in intelligen ce.62 W hile th e re ce rtain ly
w as n o sh o rtag e o f scientific investigations o f th e g ro u p differences p ro b le m — A ud rey S hu ey ’s 1958 T h e T esting o f N egro In tellig en ce review ed over
2 00 such stu d ies— p u b lic sta te m e n ts a b o u t genetic g ro u p differences w ere
m e t w ith sh a rp critical rea ctio n fro m th e professio n al co m m u n ity . T h e
atro c itie s c o m m itte d in th e n a m e o f th e N azi eugenic policies assu red th a t
an y ta lk o f genetic g ro u p differences w as ta b o o . In a d d itio n to M c G u rk ,
H e n ry G a r re tt’s d escrip tio n o f th e prevailing s e n tim e n t regarding g ro u p
differences as “eq u a lita ria n d o g m a ” w as m e t w ith p u b lic cen su re by th e
SPSSI.63 A udrey S huey w as u n ab le to get a m a jo r scientific p u b lish in g firm
to ac cep t h er b ook, w hich c o n c lu d e d th a t th e re was a significant genetic
c o m p o n e n t to b la c k -w h ite IQ differences, a n d had to have it p rin te d p ri
vately.64 Sim ilarly, w hen U n iv ersity o f C hicago physiologist D w ight Ingle
criticized fellow scientists for ig noring th e possibility o f g en etic racial dif
ferences in intelligence in a 1964 S cience m ag azin e article, su b se q u en t
issues c o n ta in e d a host o f hostile replies.65 T h e ac rim o n io u s n a tu re o f
p rofessional d e b a te o n th is to p ic w en t v irtu a lly u n n o tic e d by a p u b lic
g enerally pleased w ith c u rre n t testing practices a n d o u tco m es.
T h in g s began to change d u rin g th e late 1950s a n d early 1960s, as th ree
tre n d s converged to a lte r p erc ep tio n s a b o u t intellig en ce testing. T h e first
w as a shift in focus in th e psychological co m m u n ity , p a rtic u la rly in d e
v elo p m en tal psychology. T h e increasingly p o p u la r w ork o f Je a n P iaget an d
his follow ers w as placing th e em p h asis in th e grow th o f co g nitive stru ctu re s
o n th e ch ild ’s in te ra c tio n w ith his en v iro n m e n t. M o re a n d m o re, psy ch o l
ogists ca m e to u n d e rsta n d th a t it was n o t a q u estio n o f n a tu re vs. n u rtu re ,
b u t n a tu re a n d n u rtu re interactin g . A ch ild ’s intelligence, w h ate v er its
g enetic co m p o n e n t, co u ld be significantly en ric h ed o r im p o v erish ed by th e
e n v iro n m e n t. T h e m a jo r trea tise o f th is new p h ilo so p h y w as th e 1961 b o o k
In telligence a n d E xp erien ce by U niversity o f Illin o is psychologist J. McV.
H u n t. H u n t p rese n ted a g reat deal o f evidence to s u p p o rt his p o sitio n th a t
in telligence was alm o st infinitely plastic. H u n t’s b o o k , an d th e ideas it
25
rep resen ted , w ere e n o rm o u sly influential in b o th the scientific c o m m u n ity
an d p ublic policy circles, w here, along w ith B e n ja m in B lo o m ’s 1964 S ta
b ility a n d C hange in H u m a n C haracteristics, it p ro v id ed th e scientific
ju stifica tio n for th e H ead S tart program .
T h e sto ry o f th e beginnings o f H ead S tart is an excellent ex am p le o f how
science m ay be u su rp ed for p olitical purposes. T h e original m o tiv a tio n for
H ea d S ta rt grew o u t o f th e in creasing e n v iro n m e n ta lism in b o th th e psy
chological c o m m u n ity a n d p olitical circles, a n d the co n se q u e n t b elief th a t
p o verty co u ld be e lim in a te d th ro u g h e d u c atio n . T h e fo u n d ers o f th e H ea d
S ta rt pro g ram saw it as a lo n g -te rm social pro g ram aim ed a t m a n y ele
m e n ts o f the ch ild ’s en v iro n m e n t, in c lu d in g the fam ily a n d c o m m u n ity as
m u c h as the classroom . W hen th e pro g ram w as sold to th e p u b lic a n d th e
p o licym akers, however, th e politically m o re p alatab le q u ic k fix w as e m p h a
sized: tw o m o n th s in a special su m m e r pro g ram w ould significantly raise
th e IQs o f u nderprivileged c h ild re n .66
T h e p o sitio n th a t th e e n v iro n m e n t can significantly affect intelligence,
even w here genetic factors are im p o rta n t, is o n e w ith w hich few social
scientists w ould argue. B ut th e new wave o f th e early 60s in v o lv ed m o re
th a n a m ere em p h asis on th e en v iro n m e n t. S om ew here along th e way
gen etic factors w ere ignored. T h e lo n g -sta n d in g psychological co n sen su s
th a t genes play a large role in w ith in -g ro u p differences in intelligence had
b ro k e n dow n. N o o n e seem ed to be den y in g o u trig h t th a t genes are im p o r
ta n t to intelligence, b u t th e re w as alm o st a con sp iracy o f silence a b o u t th e
su b ject as psychologists an d ed u c ato rs b ecam e th e th a n k fu l recip ien ts o f
m illio n s o f d o llars o f federal g ra n t m oney aim ed a t raising th e IQ s o f th e
un derprivileged.
T h e second im p o rta n t tre n d o f th e era involved th e p u b lic as m u c h as
th e professionals. P erhaps in ev itab le in light o f th e tre m e n d o u s en th u sia sm
w ith w hich A m erica em b ra ce d testin g afte r W orld W ar II, th e 1960s saw a
grow ing d ise n c h a n tm e n t w ith intelligence tests as to o ls for ach iev in g a
m o re d em o cratic society. P o p u lar b o oks a n d articles beg an ap p e arin g in
w hich tests w ere criticized as im p u re m easu res o f intelligence, a n d th e
te stin g c o m m u n ity was p o rtra y ed as an a n ti-d e m o c ra tic force w ith u n
ju stified pow er over p eo p le’s lives. A dditionally, th e re w ere c o m p la in ts o f
o v errelian ce on an d m isin te rp re ta tio n o f test scores. M an y p are n ts an d
teachers, in a d eq u a tely tra in e d in p sy chom etrics, su c cu m b ed to th e m agic
o f th e IQ , a n d th e b elief th a t a single test score co u ld tell th e m m o st o f w hat
th ey need ed to know a b o u t a ch ild ’s ability to succeed. In a way, th e in creas
ing c o m p la in ts a b o u t testin g w ere m erely an ex ten sio n o f B en jam in F in e ’s
ea rlier w arnings, b u t now th e p ublic seem ed m o re in c lin e d to listen. In
1949, th e tests rep resen ted th e ro ad to the good life; by th e 1960s, it was
clear th a t m a n y people nev er got there.
26
The IQ Controversy
R e la te d to th e se d e v e lo p m e n ts , o f c o u rs e , w as a g ro w in g p u b lic
aw areness o f in e q u ity in A m eric an society, a n d th e will to d o so m e th in g
a b o u t it. T h e civil rights m o v e m en t aw akened p u b lic co n scio u sn ess to th e
d ep lo ra b le social a n d e c o n o m ic circ u m sta n ce s o f m a n y m in o rity groups,
a n d eq u a lity b ecam e th e w atchw ord. M an y o f th e in e q u itie s a p p a re n t in
e d u c a tio n a n d e m p lo y m e n t, like d is p ro p o rtio n a te b lack e n ro llm e n t in
E M R classes, involved resources a n d o p p o rtu n itie s in w hich in tellig en ce o r
a p titu d e te s tin g p la y ed a n a llo c a tiv e ro le . P e r s is te n t ra c ia l a n d s o
c io ec o n o m ic IQ differences co u ld on ly be in te rp re te d as ev id en ce o f th e
c u ltu ra l d ep riv a tio n experienced by v arious m in o rity g ro u p s a n d /o r as th e
resu lt o f test bias.
T h ere w ere, however, d ee p er issues involved. As D an iel Bell has argued
in T h e C ultu ra l C ontradictions o f C a p ita lism , liberal cap italist d em o cracy
in th e U n ite d States had been b u ilt on n o tio n s o f in d iv id u alism , te m p e re d
by c o m m itm e n ts to h ard w ork a n d se lf-re stra in t deriv ed fro m a C alv in ist
religious sensibility. Science a n d e n lig h te n m e n t h ad ero d e d th e religious
view, w hich defined w ork as a calling, a n d replaced it w ith th e n o tio n o f
w ork as so m e th in g th a t w ould lead to ever g rea ter in d iv id u al m ateria l
satisfaction. In c o n te m p o ra ry A m erica th e la tte r n o tio n h ad been replaced
by th e urge to achieve satisfactio n th ro u g h in d iv id u al se lf-d e v elo p m e n t
a n d th e c o n s u m p tio n o f m ean in g fu l experience.
T h e u n d e rm in in g o f tra d itio n a l bourgeois sensibilities, in c lu d in g c o m
m itm e n ts to s e lf-re stra in t a n d a p p ro p ria te p a tte rn s o f au th o rity . Bell a r
gues, h ad been en co u rag ed by in tellectu als (b road ly d efin ed ) in b o th E u
ro p e a n d A m erica, a n d ab so rb e d by th e professio n al elites em erg in g in
ad v a n ce d c a p ita list societies. Bell stresses w h at he calls th e “d isju n c tio n o f
realm s." W hile th e te c h n o -e c o n o m ic realm calls for efficiency a n d m er
ito c ratic hierarchy, th e c u ltu ra l realm was now em p h asizin g th e eq u a lity o f
all ex p erien ce.67
To m a n y o f th o se on th e Left, especially, IQ tests a n d even th e n o tio n o f
IQ ca m e to be seen as th e very e p ito m e o f a stratified , im p e rso n al, b u
rea u cratic, racist society. To a tta c k th e m w as also to m o u n t a c ritiq u e
ag a in st th a t society in general.
Enter Jensen
A sp ark w as ap p lied to th e tin d e r box created by th ese co nverging social
tre n d s by A rth u r Je n sen in early 1969. P erh ap s to rch is a b e tte r im age, for
Je n sen d id n o t m erely specu late a b o u t ta b o o issues; “ EIow M u ch C a n We
B oost IQ a n d S cholastic A ch iev em en t?” w as d irected at th e h e a rt o f th e
c u rre n t orthodoxy. T h e artic le begins “C o m p e n sa to ry ed u c a tio n has been
trie d a n d it a p p a re n tly has failed.”68 T h ere follow s a 1 2 3 -p ag e review o f th e
27
scientific literatu re on th e genetic a n d en v iro n m e n ta l d e te rm in a n ts o f in
telligence. A m o n g Je n se n ’s conclusions: the failure o f larg e-scale c o m p e n
sa to ry ed u c a tio n p ro g ram s to raise IQ s significantly is best ex p lain ed by th e
lim ita tio n s placed o n in tellectu al plasticity by an in d iv id u a l’s genetic e n
d o w m en t. Based on th e cu rre n tly available evidence, Je n sen placed th e
h eritab ility o f intelligence at a b o u t .80, m e an in g th a t 80 p erc en t o f th e
in d iv id u al differences in IQ in th e A m eric an p o p u la tio n co u ld be trac ed to
g enetic differences.
T h o u g h h ardly belligerent in to n e, Je n sen was, by th e n a tu re o f his
sta te m en ts, “girding h im se lf for a holy w ar against ‘en v iro n m e n ta lists,’” as
o n e c o m m e n ta to r p u t it.69 C o m in g as th ey d id o n th e heels o f th e W estin g h o u se L e a rn in g C o rp o ra tio n re p o rt, w hich h ad c o n c lu d e d th a t th e
p ro m ise d IQ gains from H ea d S ta rt h ad n o t m a teria liz ed ,70 Je n s e n ’s re
m ark s w ere n o t likely to sit well w ith th e psychological a n d ed u c atio n al
estab lish m en t. M oreover, th o u g h he a d m itte d th a t in telligence is n o t easily
m easu red , Je n sen argued for th e validity a n d usefulness o f intelligence
tests, a n d was w illing to accept th e tests as m easu res o f intelligence, a view
c o u n te r to th e grow ing d isillu sio n m e n t w ith testin g am o n g th e a rtic u la te
a n d in fo rm e d public.
As m u c h as these sta te m e n ts a b o u t IQ h eritab ility a n d th e valid ity o f
tests w ere likely to, a n d in fact did, in cite critical rea ctio n , n o th in g in
Jen sen 's article w as nearly as in fla m m a to ry as his sp e cu la tio n s a b o u t th e
fifte e n -p o in t b la c k -w h ite IQ difference, a gap th a t has existed for as long as
th e re have been useful m easu res o f intelligence. Je n sen fo u n d it “ n o t an
u n rea so n ab le h ypo thesis” th a t genetic factors are im p lica te d in th is dif
ference. A d m ittin g th e re w as insufficient evidence to reach a stro n g c o n
c lu sio n . Je n se n n e v e rth e le ss felt th a t th e e x istin g e v id e n c e w as m o re
co n siste n t w ith a h ypothesis o f g enetic a n d en v iro n m e n ta l d e te rm in a tio n
th a n w ith a strictly en v iro n m e n ta l ex p lan a tio n .
T h e v iru le n t rea ctio n to Je n se n ’s article on college ca m p u se s an d in th e
p o p u la r press m a rk e d the beginning o f th e m o d e rn IQ controversy. T h e
fu ro r over Je n sen to u c h ed off a p ublic d eb ate over intelligence testin g
m u c h larger th a n th a t created by th e A rm y tests. T h e o p p o sitio n to testin g
th a t h ad been p ro m in e n t afte r W orld W ar I, a n d w hich had begun to
surface again d u rin g th e 1960s, cam e fully to th e fore d u rin g th e first h a lf o f
th e 70s. Besides th e q u estio n o f g ro u p differences in intelligence, th e issues
o f test validity, the heritab ility o f intelligence, an d o f course, c u ltu ra l bias
e n tered th e p o p u la r literatu re . T h e 1970s saw a flood o f p o p u la r b o o k s on
testing, alm o st all o f w hich w ere critical o f Je n sen a n d o f in telligence tests
in general. T h e new s m edia helped to foster p ub lic d eb ate by in creasin g
th e ir coverage o f testin g issues. D u rin g th e first h a lf o f th e last decade,
n early every g e n e ra l-in te re st m agazine in th e c o u n try h a d at least o ne
28
The IQ Controversy
article o n th e IQ controversy, co n c e n tra tin g p rim a rily o n th e racial issue.
T h e m a jo r new spapers, like th e N e w York T im e s a n d th e W ashington Post,
closely follow ed th e exploits o f th e p rin cip als in th is u n fo ld in g d ram a . A n d
th e re w as p le n ty to cover.
A m o n g th e m o re p ro m in e n t players w as H a rv a rd psychology p ro fesso r
R ich a rd H e rrn ste in . H is e n try in to th e d e b a te is an ex a m p le o f how p u b lic
co ntroversies o ften feed u p o n them selves. H e rrn s te in , w h o is n o t a p sy ch o
m e tricia n , a n d w ho h ad nev er d o n e an y research o n issues related to in te l
ligence o r testing, b ec am e in te reste d in th e to p ic th ro u g h a ch a p te r he h ad
w ritte n for an in tro d u c to ry tex tb o o k , a n d th ro u g h J e n se n ’s article. H e
fo u n d p a rtic u la rly co m p ellin g Je n se n ’s arg u m e n ts a b o u t th e su b stan tia l
h eritab ility o f intelligence. H e rrn s te in began to read m a n y o f th e original
so urces an d becam e co n v in ce d th a t Je n sen w as co rrec t. H e rrn s te in was
also stru ck by th e im p o rta n t role intelligence seem ed to play in ec o n o m ic
m o b ility in A m eric an society. In a 1971 A tla n tic artic le en title d “ I.Q .,”
H e rrn s te in argued th a t if intelligence is im p o rta n t in th e race to get ah ead ,
an d if intelligence is largely h eritab le, th e n th e re will be genetic differences
b etw een m e m b ers o f d ifferent so c io eco n o m ic classes. H e m ad e no m e n tio n
o f th e racial issue, p er se, except to say th a t th e m o st rea so n ab le co n c lu sio n
a t p rese n t is th a t we d o n ’t know if genetic facto rs are im p lica te d o r not.
N onetheless, blacks are d isp ro p o rtio n a te ly rep rese n ted in th e low er classes,
a n d it w as easy to g ro u p H e rrn s te in w ith Je n sen as yet a n o th e r ex a m p le o f
a long histo ry o f w hite elitists ready to use te st scores a n d g enetics as
ju stific a tio n for an in e q u ita b le social stru ctu re .
As w ith Je n sen , th e rea ctio n to H e rrn s te in w as hostile. H is classes w ere
regularly d isru p te d , he w as p rev e n ted from sp eak in g a t H arv ard a n d at
o th e r cam puses, even w hen he h ad co m e to speak a b o u t issues o th e r th a n
testing, a n d he was regularly called a racist. In th e press a n d elsew here,
H e rrn s te in ’s n am e b ecam e linked w ith th a t o f Je n sen an d S tan fo rd ph y s
icist W illiam Shockley. A 1971 A m eric an A n th ro p o lo g ical A sso ciatio n res
o lu tio n c o n d e m n e d “as d a n g e ro u s an d u nscien tific th e racist, sexist o r
a n ti-w o rk in g class th e o ries o f genetic in ferio rity p ro p ag a ted by R. H e rrn s
te in , W. S hockley an d A. Je n sen .”71 T h e new s m e d ia w ere fo n d o f d escrib
ing th is u n h o ly triu m v ira te as sc ien tists h o ld in g co n tro v e rsia l th e o rie s
a b o u t th e in n a te in ferio rity o f blacks. In fact, H e rrn s te in h ad m a d e no
claim s a b o u t th e racial issue, a n d Je n sen said n o th in g a b o u t inferiority,
o n ly low er intelligence.
S hockley w as a d ifferent story. M ore b la ta n tly p o litical th a n Je n sen o r
H e rrn s te in , Shockley, a N obel P rize w in n er (as o n e o f th e in v e n to rs o f th e
tran sisto r), w as p ro b ab ly m o re responsible th a n an y o n e for giving th o se on
th e p ro -te stin g side a b ad n am e. E ven before th e p u b lic a tio n o f J e n s e n ’s
article, S hockley h a d been try in g to get th e N a tio n a l A cad em y o f Sciences
29
(N A S) to sp o n so r research on g ro u p differences in intelligence. In to n es
sm ack in g o f ea rlier eugenicists, S hockley w ould speak o f “dysgenic tren d s"
in th e A m eric an p o p u la tio n , an d at o n e p o in t sp ecu lated p u b licly a b o u t
paying people n o t to have ch ild ren , th e a m o u n t o f p ay m en t to be d eter
m in e d by th e in d iv id u a l’s IQ; th e low er th e IQ . th e larger th e in c en tiv e n o t
to breed. W hen, in 1980, m illio n a ire in v e n to r R o b e rt G ra h a m sta rted his
sp erm b an k for N obel P rize w inners, S hockley was o n e o f th e first to
c o n trib u te a n d th e only o n e to a d m it it publicly.
As S hockley to u re d th e c o u n try p ro p o u n d in g his views, th e N ew York
T im e s pro v id ed b lo w -b y -b lo w coverage o f th e tu m u lt. T h e N A S, w hich for
years h ad refused to h o n o r S hockley’s call for research, su rp risin g ly c a p itu
lated in 1971, b u t on ly in agreeing th a t racial differences sh o u ld be stu d ied .
T h ey declin ed to fu n d such research.
Testing Under Attack
W hile Jensen's H E R artic le w as th e spark th a t to u c h e d off th e IQ c o n tro
versy, it w ould be a m istake to believe th a t th e re w ould have b een no
co n troversy w ith o u t it. C riticism o f te stin g w as o n th e rise th ro u g h o u t th e
60s; Je n se n ’s article served to accelerate th e pace an d to focus a tte n tio n on
th e racial issue. As early as 1968, how ever, th e A sso c iatio n o f B lack
P sychologists h ad called for a co m p lete m o ra to riu m on sta n d ard iz ed te st
ing, charging th a t th e tests w ere biased a n d w ere b eing used to stigm atize
m in o rity ch ild ren . In 1972, th e N E A passed a sim ila r reso lu tio n . T h e
co n troversy was, in fact, m u ch b ro a d e r th a n th e th e o ries o f H e rrn ste in ,
Je n sen , a n d Shockley.
M u ch o f the grow ing d isillu sio n m e n t w ith te stin g w as tied to a n o th e r
ed u c atio n al m o v e m en t, tow ards m a in strea m in g . M a in strea m in g refers to
th e te ac h in g o f h a n d ic a p p e d ch ild ren in th e sam e classro o m w ith th e ir
n o n h a n d ic a p p e d peers, ra th e r th a n in se p arate classes, a n d is m a n d a te d by
P u b lic Law 9 4 -1 4 2 , th e E d u c a tio n for All H a n d ic a p p e d C h ild re n A ct o f
1975. In th e years p receding th e passage o f 9 4 -1 4 2 , m a n y ed u c ato rs had
c o m e in c re a sin g ly to b eliev e th a t te a c h in g h a n d ic a p p e d c h ild re n (re
gardless o f th e ty p e o f h an d ica p ) in se p arate classes is stig m atizin g a n d
d e trim e n ta l to th e e d u c a tio n a l process. A t th e sam e tim e , as previously
m e n tio n e d , th e re w as a very stro n g tre n d away fro m tra c k in g (ab ility
g ro u p in g ) a m o n g n o n h a n d ic a p p e d ch ild ren , th e idea b eing th a t all ch ild ren
sh o u ld , as m u c h as possible, be given th e sam e ed u c atio n . A large p a rt o f
th e p ro b lem w ith tra c k in g a n d o th e r fo rm s o f ed u c atio n al segregation is
th a t stu d e n ts fro m c e rta in racial a n d so c io eco n o m ic g ro u p s find th e m
selves d isp ro p o rtio n a te ly in th e excluded groups. As a p rim a ry to o l by
w h ich trac k in g a n d p la c e m e n t decisions are m ad e, in telligence a n d a p
30
The IQ Controversy
titu d e tests ca m e u n d e r close scrutiny. T h e L a r r y P. d ecisio n is, o f course,
o n e ex am p le o f w here th is e x a m in a tio n led.
A m o n g th e n u m e ro u s critiq u es o f intelligence te stin g to a p p e a r d u rin g
th is perio d w as a 1974 b ook. T h e S cience a n d Politics o f IQ by P rin c e to n
psychologist L eon K am in . L ike H e rrn s te in , K am in h ad n o ex p erien ce
w ith testing before th e p u b lic a tio n o f J e n s e n ’s article. Ironically, K am in
b ecam e in te reste d in th e to p ic w hen, as c h a irm a n o f th e P rin c e to n p sy ch o l
ogy d e p a rtm e n t in 1972, he h ad to deal w ith th e fu ro r resu ltin g fro m a
sched u led talk by H e rrn s te in . W hen K am in e x a m in e d th e intelligence
lite ra tu re for him self, he ca m e to co n c lu sio n s th a t w ere th e o p p o site o f
H e rrn s te in ’s. N o t only, K am in decided, h ad th e h isto ry o f testin g been o n e
long a tte m p t to keep m in o ritie s an d th e low er classes from u su rp in g th e
privileges o f tho se in power, b u t th is p o liticiza tio n o f science in c lu d ed th e
d a ta on IQ heritability. K a m in claim ed th a t th e re w as no rea so n ab le evi
d en c e fo r a n y h eritab le c o m p o n e n t to in d iv id u al differences in IQ. T h is
w as a rem a rk a b le assertio n in th a t it flew in th e face o f over fifty years o f
research th a t had alm o st u n a n im o u sly c o n c lu d e d th a t IQ h eritab ility was
su b stan tia l. It h as been n o te d th a t th is co n sen su s h ad been largely fo rg o t
te n d u rin g th e e n v iro n m e n ta list d o m in a te d 60s, b u t it h ad n ev er been
d irectly d isp u ted . In th e ac rim o n io u s clim a te o f th e 70s, a n y th in g was
possible.
As a resu lt o f his radical p o sitio n , K a m in often fo u n d h im se lf playing th e
p a rt o f th e sp o k e sm an for th e o p p o sitio n in m e d ia ac c o u n ts o f th e d eb ate
over IQ heritability. A lthough K a m in rep rese n ted th e m o st ex tre m e p o ssi
ble p o sitio n o n th e issue, th e p ro d u ce rs o f 6 0 M in u te s a n d o th ers w ere
h ap p y to set h im u p o p p o site Je n sen o r H e rrn s te in , giving th e view ing an d
re a d in g a u d ie n c e th e im p re ssio n th a t e x p e rts w ere, a t b est, u n d e c id e d
a b o u t th e role o f genes in in tellig en ce.72 T h a t Je n sen o r H e rrn s te in w ere
o ften ch o sen to rep resen t th e h e re d ita ria n p o sitio n d id n o t help m a tte rs,
since th ey h ad alread y been associated w ith racism in ea rlier press rep o rts.
T h e d ea th blow fo r th e h e re d ita ria n p o sitio n , from th e m ed ia p ersp ec
tive, ca m e w ith th e w idely publicized scandal su rro u n d in g S ir C yril B u rt,
th e B ritish psychologist w ho, late in life, a p p a re n tly h ad faked d a ta c o n
ce rn in g th e h eritab ility o f intelligence. E vid en ce o f B u rt’s deceit began to
su rface in 1973 a n d 1974, b u t w as n o t b ro u g h t to th e a tte n tio n o f th e
g eneral pu b lic an d th e ac ad e m ic estab lish m e n t as a w hole u n til late 1976,
w hen articles in th e T im e s o f L o n d o n a n d S cien ce m a g az in e73 (an d su b se
q u e n tly th e N e w York T im e s a n d th e rest o f th e A m eric an p rin t m ed ia)
review ed th e evid en ce th a t B u rt h ad in v e n ted d a ta fo r tw in stu d ies o f IQ
heritability, an d publish ed , u n d e r th e n am es o f fictitio u s au th o rs, p ap ers
su p p o rtin g his ow n p o sitio n s a n d attac k in g th o se o f his critics. T h e im m e
d ia te r e a c tio n fro m m a n y o f th o s e m o s t c o n c e r n e d a b o u t th e IQ
31
h eritab ility issue w as as irra tio n a l as it w as predictab le. F rien d s o f B u rt,
a n d o th e r believers in su b stan tia l IQ heritability, saw th e attac k s o n B u rt as
a n o th e r ex am p le o f th e sm e ar ta ctics o f left-w in g e n v iro n m e n ta lists o u t to
destroy th e e n tire testing estab lish m e n t. E n v iro n m en talists, on th e o th e r
h a n d , accepted th e evidence against B u rt as p ro o f th a t th e h ere d itaria n
th e o ry o f intelligence was, fro m th e beginning, a co n sp iracy ag ain st m in o r
ities an d th e p oor.74 T h a t th is m in i-c o n tro v e rsy en d e d w ith L. S. H ea rn shaw ’s careful b iography o f B u rt in 19 7 9,75 in w hich th e a u th o r co n clu d es
th a t B u rt m o st likely was guilty o f in te lle ctu al frau d , d id n o t help th e p ro
te stin g cause in th e larger d eb a te a b o u t IQ. T h e new s m e d ia covered these
ev en ts closely, em p h asizin g th e dam ag e caused to th e h e re d ita ria n p o sitio n
by th e loss o f B urt's d ata. To be sure, th e m ed ia w ere generally carefu l to
p o in t o u t th a t th ere w ere tho se w ho believed th e loss o f th is d a ta m ad e little
difference to th e stren g th o f th e h ere d itaria n claim , b u t th e sp o k esm en for
th is positio n w ere usually Je n sen o r H e rrn ste in .
The Controversy as a W hole
A t th e h e a rt o f th e IQ controversy is a clash betw een tw o sets o f values
c e n tra l to A m e ric a n th o u g h t. T h e rela tiv e d o m in a n c e o f th ese valu es
th ro u g h o u t the tw en tieth c e n tu ry has largely co n tro lled th e fate o f in te l
ligence testin g in th is country. As we have alread y p o in te d o u t th is clash
closely parallels w h at D aniel Bell has called th e “ d isju n ctio n o f realm s.”
T h is d isju n ctio n is reflected in the ratio n al b elief in intelligence a n d a p
titu d e tests as efficient to o ls for th e d istrib u tio n o f resources, coexisting
w ith a c u ltu ral a n d p olitical o u tc ry again st supposed in d iv id u al a n d gro u p
differences in intelligence. T h e IQ controversy rep resen ts a clash o f values,
o ften w ithin th e sam e person, betw een a b elief in a m e rito cratic h ierarch y
(efficiency) an d th e desire to see everyone succeed (eq u ality ).76
T h e desire for efficiency places the em p h asis on differences betw een
in div id u als, w hile eq u a lity c o n c e n tra te s on th e sim ilarities. Efficiency in a
co m plex in d u stria l society req u ires th a t resources a n d o p p o rtu n itie s (e d u
ca tio n , em p lo y m e n t, pow er) be allocated to tho se w ho will use th e m m o st
p roductively, as defined by th e p ro d u c tio n re q u ire m e n ts (m aterial, artistic,
scientific, etc.) o f th e society. A m o n g th e skills m o st im p o rta n t to p ro d u c
tivity in o u r society is in tellectu al ap titu d e o f vario u s sorts. In a cap italist
system , value is placed on these skills th ro u g h v ario u s rew ards (m oney,
prestige, etc.), w hich serve as in cen tiv es to assure th a t skills are p ro p ag ated
an d resources p ro p erly allo cated th ro u g h c o m p e titio n . B ut th e d istrib u tio n
o f rew ards th ro u g h co m p e titio n also ca rrie s w ith it th e n o tio n o f dessert.
T h o se w ho receive sought after rew ards are. ideally, th o se w ho m o st deserve
th e m , hence th e n o tio n o f th e m eritocracy. B ut ju s t as th e aristocracy,
32
The IQ Controversy
o riginally m e an in g “rule by th e best citiz en s,” w as c o rru p te d in to “ ru le by
w ealth an d in h e rita n c e ,” so m ay “ rule by th e m o st d eserv in g ” (read “ best
citizens” ) c o n ta in th e seeds o f elitism a n d racism . In tellig en ce an d a p titu d e
tests m ay in fact be useful too ls fo r th e a c h ie v em e n t o f an efficient a n d
p ro d u ctiv e society, b u t th e system they help p ro p ag a te ca rrie s w ith it th e
d an g e r o f an en tre n c h e d elite w ho can p erv e rt th ese to o ls to m a in ta in a
n o tio n o f th e ir ow n in h e re n t superiority.
T h e eg alitarian ideal is th e an tith e sis o f elitism a n d racism , a n d th e
su b ju g atio n o f in d iv id u als a n d g ro u p s resu ltin g th e re fro m . T h e d e m o cratic
ideal th a t all m en are created eq u al req u ires th a t u n d e r a cap italist system
th e co m p e titio n be fair an d th a t resources be allo cated to th o se m o st d e
serving (to th o se w ho possess th e necessary a ttrib u te s an d skills), irre sp e c
tive o f race, religion, ethnicity, w ealth, a n d o th e r facto rs th o u g h t to be
irre le v an t to o p tim u m resource u tiliza tio n . (P ro p o n e n ts o f affirm ativ e ac
tio n an d o th e r q u o ta system s argue th a t society will a c tu a lly fu n ctio n m o re
sm o o th ly if so m e o f these factors are ta k e n explicitly in to a c c o u n t in o rd er
to c o rre c t past inequities.) T h e d an g e r in h e re n t in eg alitarian ism is th a t a
p h ilo so p h y o f h u m a n rights m ay be e x tra p o lated in to a th e o ry o f h u m a n
n atu re . T h a t in d iv id u als sh o u ld be tre a te d equally does n o t m e an th a t all
in d iv id u als are equal. W h e th e r as a resu lt o f ac cid en ts o f b irth a n d e n
v iro n m e n t, o r th ro u g h stren g th o f will, people differ in ab ilities o f all sorts,
an d it is possible th a t these abilities are n o t eq u ally d istrib u te d a m o n g all
p ossible su bgroups o f the p o p u la tio n . Yet in a system w here th e re is m e rit
a tta c h e d to c e rta in a ttrib u tes, regardless o f th e ir origin, in e q u ity is easily
perceived, even in situ a tio n s w here c o m p e titio n is fair a n d objective. W h en
tests tell us th a t in d iv id u als a n d g roups differ in average in tellectu al ability,
th e re is a te n d en c y to b la m e th e m essenger a n d cry “ con sp iracy ,” ra th e r
th a n accept w h at m ay be an u n p le a sa n t fact. T h e te n d en c y tow ard a p p a r
en tly irra tio n a l response (if th a t is w h at m u c h criticism o f testin g is) is
h eig h ten ed by th e a p p a re n t racism an d elitism (if th a t is w h at tra d itio n a l
p ro -te s tin g views are) o f th o se w ho m a in ta in th a t in tellig en ce tests m e a
sure im p o rta n t a ttrib u te s o n w hich indiv id u als, a n d possibly groups, differ
genetically.
It m ight be argued th a t th e d ic h o to m y here o u tlin e d is u n d e rm in e d by
th e fact th a t th e m e rito crac y is an egalitarian ideal, to be c o n tra ste d w ith
th e elitist aristocracy. T h is w as tru e in th e years follow ing W orld W ar II,
w hen tests w ere p ro cla im e d as tools for achiev in g a m e rito c ra tic o rd er
based on fair co m p e titio n betw een m e m b ers o f all gro u p s. O n e o f th e
p ro d u c ts o f th e civil rights m o v e m en t w as a red efin itio n o f fair c o m p e ti
tio n . F airness ca m e to be defined in te rm s o f o u tc o m es (eq u al rep rese n ta
tio n ) ra th e r th a n processes (equal o p p o rtu n ity ). N o t all o f th o se w ho had
su p p o rte d th e tra d itio n a l m e rito cratic n o tio n s w ere w illing to acq u iesce in
th is change (p artic u larly th o se w ho h ad benefited from th e system ), h en ce
33
th e conflict betw een m e rito crac y an d eg alitarian ism . T h e te rm s are ours;
n o d o u b t te s tin g 's s u p p o r te r s w o u ld n o t c o n s id e r th e m s e lv e s n o n
eg alitarian, n o r w ould its critics call th em selves a n ti-m e rito c ra tic . T h e IQ
co n troversy is n o t d riven by th e conflict betw een perso n s, however, b u t by
th e conflict betw een tw o essentially d e m o c ra tic ideals.
O n e can see, in th e h isto ry o f th e IQ controversy prev io u sly o u tlin ed , th e
im p e tu s o f factors favoring th e relative d o m in a n c e o f o n e o r th e o th e r o f
these views. A t th e tu rn o f th e century, a n d th ro u g h th e F irst W orld War,
th e need to organize th e chaos created by in creasin g in d u stria liz a tio n , th e
grow th o f p u b lic ed u c atio n , a n d th e rap id influx o f m y riad im m ig ra n t
g ro u p s placed th e em p h asis squarely o n efficiency, role sp ecializatio n , an d
th e id en tificatio n o f in d iv id u al differences. T h e use an d p o p u la rity o f in te l
ligence a n d a p titu d e tests increased rapidly, often m o re rap id ly th a n th e
validity o f th e tests w arra n te d . A t the sam e tim e, th e excesses o f th e m er
ito c ratic ethos, co u p led w ith x e n o p h o b ia tow ard im m ig ra n t g roups a n d a
long h isto ry o f racism , led to th e b a sta rd iz a tio n o f th e W orld W ar I A rm y
testin g results. T h e en su in g IQ controversy rep rese n ts th e first eg alitarian
b acklash.
Betw een th e w ars, as eugenic a n d x en o p h o b ic a ttitu d e s w aned, m e n tal
testers b ecam e m o re professional, th e view of tests as to o ls o f efficiency
c o n tin u e d to ho ld th e u p p er h a n d , a n d few c o m p la in ts a b o u t testin g w ere
h eard. T h e eg alitarian ethic, on th e rise after W orld W ar II, em b ra ce d th e
new ly refu rb ish ed tests as m ean s for a m o re eq u itab le d istrib u tio n o f re
sources, a n d sta n d ard iz ed testin g enjoyed its greatest p o p u larity . T h e love
affair w as sh o rt lived, however, as eg a litarian ism b lo sso m ed in to th e civil
rights m o v em en t, a n d a heavily e n v iro n m e n ta list view o f h u m a n n atu re .
Je n sen , H e rrn s te in , a n d Shockley pro v id ed fo d d er for grow ing c o n sp ir
ato rial th eo ries o f th e testin g en terp rise, a n d a new, m o re pervasive IQ
co n troversy em erged. In recen t years, th e en em ies o f te stin g have gain ed
im p o rta n t g ro u n d in th is ongoing war.
It is th e p u rp o se o f th is b o o k to e x a m in e m o re closely th e im p o rta n t
c o m b a ta n ts a n d battlefields in th e w ar over testing. M o st o f th e fighting has
ta k en place on tw o fronts: in th e new s m edia, a n d in p u b lic policy aren as.
We have discussed how th o se o p posed to testin g a p p e a r to have m ad e
co nsid erab le gains in b o th d o m a in s. T h is m ay o r m ay n o t be for th e best.
W h a t is u n fo rtu n a te a b o u t th e p u b lic controversy over in telligence an d
a p titu d e testin g is th a t it is so often u n in fo rm e d . M u c h o f th e relev an t
d iscussion an d decision m a k in g seem s m o re influen ced by p o litical co n sid
e ra tio n s th a n by th e em p irical lite ra tu re on intelligence an d testing. T h e
recen t h isto ry o f th is contro v ersy is m a rk e d by th e in creasin g su b su m p tio n
o f w h at is p rim a rily a te ch n ic al issue, th e validity a n d usefulness o f in te l
ligence a n d ap titu d e tests, u n d e r p olitical con cern s.
Tests are an im p o rta n t p u b lic policy issue, as th ey c o n tin u e to play a
34
The IQ Controversy
m a jo r allocative role in ed u c a tio n an d em p lo y m e n t. T h e ir p o liticiza tio n is
th e re fo re to so m e degree desirable; in a p a rtic ip a to ry dem ocracy, citizens
sh o u ld have a say in how resources are d istrib u ted . D ifficulties arise w hen
th is p o liticiza tio n so overw helm s th e te ch n ic al issues th a t it is fo rg o tten
th a t m o st m e m b ers o f society, in c lu d in g m o st o f th o se ch arg ed w ith policy
d ecisions, are ill eq u ip p ed to deal w ith th e te ch n ic al q u e stio n s involved.
W h a t has h ap p e n ed in th e IQ contro v ersy is th a t th e ex p e rt voice has been
m isin te rp rete d an d m isrep resen ted , as science has been p erv erted for p o lit
ical ends. (T h e decision to use intelligence tests is a policy, an d th erefo re
p olitical, decision, in w hich th e te ch n ic al q u estio n o f t e s t v alidity sh o u ld
play an im p o rta n t, b u t n o t necessarily decisive, p a rt. T h e q u e stio n o f test
validity, o r test bias, on th e o th e r h an d , is a p u rely te ch n ic al o n e, a n d
sh o u ld n o t be influenced by political co n sid eratio n s.)
T h e new s m ed ia have, o f course, always ap p ealed to ex p e rts in th e ir
coverage o f controversies, b u t th e te n d en c y in th e m e d ia is to p a in t every
th in g in black a n d w hite, as if ex p erts are equally split betw een tw o d i
am etric ally o p p o site positions. We have n o te d th is te n d e n c y regarding th e
IQ h eritab ility q u estio n . F u rth e rm o re , th e re is reaso n to believe th a t th e
m ed ia m ay have alread y decid ed w hat th e ex p e rts th in k c o n c e rn in g IQ.
W h en T im e m ag azin e tells us, as it did in 1977, th a t “th e m o re tests th a t
are devised, th e m o re ed u c ato rs seem to d o u b t th e ir validity,’’77 we are led
to believe th a t tho se w ho publicly a tta c k tests are ech o in g th o se m o st
know ledgeable a b o u t th em . F lerrn stein has n o te d th a t every review o f a
b o o k c o n c e rn in g intelligence testin g in th e N ew York T im e s B o o k R ev iew
betw een 1975 a n d 1981 is critical o f testing, a n d th a t n o n e o f th e review ers
is a tra in e d p sy c h o m e tric ia n .78
In th e legislatures a n d in th e co u rts, ex p ertise o ften tak es a back seat to
p o litical co n sid eratio n s. T h e difficulties here are sim ila r to th o se in th e
new s m edia. A s in th e m edia, w here co n tro v ersy is p rese n ted as a clash
betw een p o la r opposites, th e ad v ersary system , as p racticed in legislative
h earings an d , to a g rea ter ex ten t, th e co u rts, is n o t co n d u c iv e to th e a c
q u isitio n o f em p irica l know ledge. R a th e r th a n being p resen ted w ith an
o b je c tiv e a s se ss m e n t o f th e lite ra tu re , le g isla to rs a n d ju d g e s h e a r th e
stro n g est possible case for w h at are often th e m o st ex tre m e a rg u m e n ts in a
d eb ate. Faced on ly w ith o p tio n s at th e extrem es, d ecision m ak ers m u st
e ith e r a d o p t an ex tre m e p o sitio n o r d evelop o n e o f th e ir ow n. U n fo r
tu nately, such decisions are o ften o u t o f synch w ith th e facts.
C onsider, fo r exam ple, th e decisions reach ed by Ju d g e P eck h am in th e
L a r r y P. case, a n d by a n o th e r federal d istric t c o u rt ju d g e, Jo h n G rady, in a
highly sim ila r case in 1980 (P A S E v. Hannon).™ As in L a r r y P., Ju d g e
G ra d y was asked to en jo in th e use o f intelligence tests for th e p la ce m en t o f
black ch ild ren in to special ed u c a tio n classes becau se th ese tests are racially
35
biased. R em arkably, Ju d g e G ra d y ’s decision w as exactly th e o p p o site o f
th a t reached by Judge P eckham . G ra d y c o n c lu d e d th a t th ese tests are n o t
sufficiently biased to ju stify a d isc o n tin u a tio n o f th e ir use. E x am in atio n o f
th e tran sc rip ts o f these cases reveals th a t each ju d g e was p resen ted w ith a
great deal o f te ch n ic al in fo rm a tio n from ex p e rts testify in g for b o th sides
co n c ern in g th e bias issue. U n ab le to reach a firm co n c lu sio n from th is
m o u n ta in o f co nflicting d ata, th e ju d ic ia l decisions reveal th a t th e ju d g es
essentially ignored m u ch o f the ex p e rt te stim o n y an d reach ed th e ir own
co n c lu sio n s a b o u t test bias based on tw o d ifferent criterio n , b o th o f w hich
are eq u ally w rong from a te ch n ic al sta n d p o in t.
It is clear from Ju d g e P eck h am s d ecision a n d from his sta te m e n ts d u rin g
th e trial th a t he accepted as an in c o n tro v e rtib le fact th a t th e re is n o dif
ference in th e “tru e " level o f reta rd a tio n betw een vario u s racial a n d eth n ic
groups. T herefore, an y te st th a t p u rp o rts to show such a difference m u st be
biased. Such an arg u m e n t is circ u lar w ith o u t o th e r ev id en ce for th e asser
tio n o f equal levels o f re ta rd a tio n , b u t it has th e very useful p ro p e rty o f
en d in g discussion.
H aving heard all th e ex p e rt te stim o n y a b o u t c u ltu ra l bias in intelligence
tests d u rin g th e P A SE case. Ju d g e G ra d y decid ed th a t he c o u ld n 't decide.
H e th erefo re e x a m in e d th e tests in q u estio n o n an ite m - b y -ite m basis, an d
d e te rm in e d for h im s e lf how m a n y ite m s lo o k e d b iased . U n lik e Ju d g e
P eck h a m , w ho fre q u e n tly cited e x p e rt te stim o n y to b ack up his c o n
clusions, Judge G ra d y was n o t co n v in ced th a t th e ex p erts testifying at th e
trial w ere th em selves being very objective. U n fo rtu n a tely , G ra d y ’s m e th o d
o f m easu rin g bias is useless w ith o u t d a ta o n how test ta k ers actu ally p er
fo rm on each q u estio n . In th e absence o f w h at he felt to be reaso n ab le
ex p e rt testim ony, a n d lacking ex p e rt know ledge him self. Ju d g e G ra d y w as
forced in to m a k in g a decision, on faulty g rounds, th a t affected th e lives o f
h u n d re d s o f schoolchildren.
T h e controversy su rro u n d in g intelligence an d a p titu d e testin g has im
p o rta n t p ractical co n seq u en ces, b u t th e p olitical n a tu re o f th e con tro v ersy
seem s to have o b scu red th a t it is highly tech n ical as well. W h en tech n ical
issues becom e im p o rta n t m a tte rs o f p u b lic policy, w h eth e r in th e co u rts,
th e legislatures, o r th e new s m edia, th e adversary n a tu re o f political d eb ate
will in evitably obscu re an objective assessm ent o f ex p e rt o p in io n . A n ac cu
rate p ic tu re o f ex p e rt o p in io n a b o u t intelligence an d a p titu d e testin g is
th erefo re needed. Such a survey is n o t a m e an s o f settlin g th e tech n ical
issues— scientific q u estio n s c a n n o t be answ ered by c o n sen su s— b u t is an
a tte m p t to re m a in unb iased in th e one elem e n t o f an essentially p o litical
d ecision w here objectivity is m o st im p o rta n t.
T h e next fo u r ch a p te rs o f th is book will discuss th e fo u r m a jo r areas o f
c o n te n tio n in the IQ controversy: (1) th e n a tu re o f intelligence, or, m o re
36
The IQ Controversy
accurately, w h at intelligence tests m easure; (2) th e h eritab ility o f IQ ; (3) th e
n a tu re o f racial a n d class differences in intelligen ce te st scores, in c lu d in g a
d iscussion o f th e bias issue; a n d (4) th e use a n d m isuse o f intelligence an d
a p titu d e tests. T hese ch a p te rs will in c lu d e a s u m m a ry o f th e p o sitio n s held
on each o f th e issues by th e v arious c o n s titu e n ts in th e IQ d eb ate. T h e
d iscussion will focus, however, on th e results o f a large scale survey o f
ex p e rt o p in io n on contro v ersial aspects o f intelligence an d a p titu d e testing.
M any o f th e issues dealt w ith in the follow ing ch ap ters, a n d in th e q u e s
tio n n a ire , have n o t been th e su b ject o f m u c h p u b lic d iscu ssio n (i.e., new s
m e d ia coverage), b u t have been im p o rta n t elem e n ts in th e lo n g er a n d m o re
co m p re h en siv e d e b a te a b o u t te stin g in th e scholarly literatu re . It is h o p ed
th a t readers, p articu la rly th o se charged w ith p u b lic policy decisions, will
th ereb y gain a fuller u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e sources o f c o n te n tio n in th e IQ
controversy an d , m o st im p o rta n t, w here th e ex p e rt p o p u la tio n sta n d s on
th ese issues. C h a p te rs 4 an d 5 also in c lu d e an an aly sis o f th e rela tio n sh ip
betw een th e d em o g ra p h ic a n d b ac k g ro u n d ch aracteristics o f o u r ex p e rt
sam ple, a n d th e ir o p in io n s a b o u t testing.
C h a p te rs 6 a n d 7 describe th e results o f a c o n te n t an aly sis o f new s m ed ia
coverage o f th e m o d e rn IQ controversy. We have an a ly zed all coverage o f
te stin g -re la te d issues ap p e arin g in ten m a jo r p rin t a n d telev isio n new s
sources from th e years 1969 (the year o f J e n s e n ’s sem in al article) to 1983,
inclusive. T h e analysis co n c e n tra te d o n how th e v ario u s co n tro v ersial is
sues w ere p rese n ted a n d p a rtic u la rly o n how ex p e rt o p in io n a b o u t th ese
issues was rep resen ted . C o m p ariso n betw een these results a n d th o se o f th e
ex p e rt survey will provide a m e asu re o f new s m ed ia ac cu racy on coverage
o f th e IQ controversy. A d d itio n a lly C h a p te r 7 in clu d es th e resu lts o f a
survey o f jo u rn a lis t o p in io n a b o u t key testin g issues, as w ell as ratin g s o f
new s m edia coverage from o u r testin g experts.
T h e co n c lu d in g ch a p te r p resen ts a synthesis o f th e survey an d c o n te n t
analysis results a n d a m o re general d iscussion o f th e rela tio n sh ip betw een
science an d politics. We will also discuss th e role o f p u b lic o p in io n in th e
IQ contro v ersy an d th e influ en ce o f th e m edia, ac ad e m ia , a n d th e g eneral
p u b lic o n pu b lic policy.
It is im p o rta n t to n o te, before begin n in g a d iscu ssio n o f th e im p o rta n t
issues in th e controversy, w h at th is b o o k is not ab o u t. We will n o t ex a m in e
th e contro v ersy su rro u n d in g a c h ie v em e n t tests— th o se tests in te n d e d to
m easu re specific know ledge, ra th e r th a n skills o r abilities. T h ere will, th e re
fore, be no d iscussion o f tw o recen tly d isp u ted testin g issues; m in im u m
c o m p ete n cy testin g for stu d e n ts, a n d te a c h e r c o m p ete n cy testing. T h ese
tests a re aim ed a t m easu rin g th e know ledge req u ired fo r g ra d u a tio n a n d
teach in g , respectively, n o t a p titu d e o r intelligence. T h ere will, however, be
co n sid erab le discussion o f th e m u c h -d e b a te d a p titu d e -a c h ie v e m e n t d is
37
tin c tio n ; W h a t sep arates a c h ie v em e n t fro m a p titu d e a n d intelligence tests,
o th e r th a n th e test m ak ers’ in te n tio n s?
A dditionally, we will n o t be c o n c e rn e d w ith new er an d m o re rad ical
c o n c ep tio n s o f intelligence an d testing such as H ow ard G a rd n e r's “ m u ltip le
in telligences,” o r R o b e rt S tern b erg ’s T riarchic T heo ry .80 T h ese recen t d e
v elo p m en ts are im p o rta n t c o n trib u tio n s to th e lite ra tu re on in telligence
th a t m ay very well lead to fu n d a m e n ta l changes in th e way we th in k a b o u t
an d m easure in tellectu al skills, b u t th ey have very little to d o w ith th e
issues o f fu n d a m e n ta l co n c ern in the IQ co n tro v e rsy — th e validity o f tests,
th e h eritab ility o f IQ , th e n a tu re o f g ro u p differences in te st scores, test use
a n d m isu se— save th e q u estio n o f the n a tu re o f intelligence. Even here,
th ese new ap p ro a ch es have yet to have m u c h im p a c t on th e lo n g -sta n d in g
p u b lic discussion o f w h at “ intelligence” is. T h e sam e is tru e for m o st o f
m o d e rn cognitive science. O u r p rim a ry c o n c e rn is w ith th e controversy
over intelligence a n d a p titu d e testing, n o t w ith rec en t d ev e lo p m e n ts in th e
stu d y o f m en tal processes.
N otes
1. A rthur R. Jensen, Genetics and Education (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p.
46.
2. Ibid., p. 24.
3. Although most of the more popular attacks on Jensen tended to be quite ad
hominem, one of the few major exceptions has been Thomas Sowell, a con
servative black economist. While Sowell has strongly criticized Jensen’s con
clusions. he has always treated him seriously and with civility. Thomas Sowell,
Race and Economics (New York: David McKay. 1975).
4. SPSSI, “ Statem ent on C urrent IQ Controversy: Heredity Versus Environ
m ent,” American Psychologist 24 (1969): 1039-1040.
5. Jensen, p. 39.
6. “Born Dumb?” Newsweek 31 March 1969, p. 84.
7. Jensen, p. 14; telephone interview with Lee Edson, author of “jensenism” arti
cle, 19 October 1985.
8. Leon J. Kamin. The Science and Politics o f IQ (Potomac, MD: Lawrence
Erlbaum. 1974); Andrew J. Strenio. The Testing Trap (New York: Rawson,
Wade, 1981); Paul L. Houts, ed., The M yth o f M easurability (New York: Hart
Publishing, 1977); Stephen Jay Gould, The M ismeasure o f Man (New York:
Norton, 1981).
9. "New National Organization to Fight for Fair Standardized Tests.” FairTest
press release, 24 October 1985.
10. Carl Dimengo, “ Basic Testing Programs Used in M ajor School Systems
Throughout the United States in the School Year 1977-78," Akron Public
Schools. March 1978.
11. Hobson v. Hansen, 269 FSupp. 401 (D. D.C. 1967).
12. Larry P. v. Riles. 495 F.Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979).
13. Larry P v. Riles, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984).
38
The IQ Controversy
14. Telephone interview with D onna Bolen, Special-Education Consultant, Cal
ifornia State D epartment o f Education, 10 July 1984.
15. “IQ Tests Restricted by Race,” Washington Post, 6 July 1987, p. A3; “Civil
Rights Panel to Study California Ban on IQ Tests for Blacks,” Associated Press
13 July 1987.
16. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ).
17. A rthur R. Block and Michael A. Rebell, Competence Assessment and the Cou
rts: An Overview o f the State o f the Law (ERIC ED 192 169), p. 16.
18. There may be some relief in sight for supporters of employment testing, as the
EEOC, in response to increasing complaints about its unrealistic standards,
announced in May 1985 that it is reviewing its Guidelines and may relax them.
It would not pay to be optimistic, however, as the EEOC was close to relaxing it
standards in 1976, only to be persuaded at the last minute by the NAACP to
republish the original Guidelines. M. A. Pearn, Employment Testing and the
Goal o f Equal Opportunity: The American Experience (London: Runnymede
Trust. July 1978), p. 28 (ERIC UD 019 829).
19. Mary L. Tenopyr, “The Realities of Employment Testing,” American Psychol
ogist 36 (1981): 1121.
20. M. C. Miner and M. G. Miner, Employee Selection Within the Law (Wash
ington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs, 1978).
21. R. M. Guion, quoted in Pearn, p. 29.
22. Douglas v. Hampton, 338 ESupp. 18 (D. D.C. 1972).
23. National Education Association, Measurement and Testing: An NEA Perspec
tive (Washington, DC: Author, 1980).
24. R. T. H artnett and R. A. Feldmesser, “College Admissions Testing and the
Myth of Selectivity: An Unresolved Question and Needed Research ” A A H E
Bulletin 32 ( 1980):3—6.
25. J. McKeen Cattell, “ Mental Tests and Measurement,” M ind 15(1890), p. 373 ff.
26. Clark Wissler, “The Correlation of Mental and Physical Tests,” Psychological
Review, Monograph Supplement 3 ( 1901 ).
27. A rthur R. Jensen, “Reaction Time and Psychometric g,” in A Model fo r Intel
ligence, ed. Hans J. Eysenck (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1982), pp. 93-132; Lang
don E. Longstreth, “Jensen’s Reaction-Tim e Investigations of Intelligence: A
Critique,” Intelligence 8 ( 1984): 139-160: A rthur R. Jensen and Philip A. Ver
non. “Jensen’s Reaction-Tim e Studies: A Reply to Longstreth,” Intelligence 10
(1986): 153-179; Langdon E. Longstreth, “The Real and the Unreal: A Reply to
Jensen and Vernon,” Intelligence 10 ( 1986): 181-191; A. T. Welford, “ Long
streth versus Jensen and Vernon on Reaction Time and IQ: an Outsider's
View,” Intelligence 10 (1986): 193-195.
28. Stella E. Sharp, “Individual Psychology: A Study in Psychological M ethod,”
American Journal o f Psychology 10(1898-1899):329-391.
29. Alfred Binet, “Attention et Adaptation,” L'Année Psychologique 6 ( 1900) 248
404.
30. Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, “Méthodes Nouvelles pour le Diagnostic du
Niveau Intellectuel des A norm aux,” L ’A nnée Psychologique 11 ( 1905): 191
244.
31. William Stem, Die Différentielle Psychologie (1911).
32. Lewis M. Term an, The M easurem ent o f Intelligence (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin. 1916).
33. Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon. “Sur la Nécessite d’une Méthode Applica-
39
ble au Diagnostic des Arriérées Militaires,” Annales Médico-Psychologiques,
(January/February 1910).
34. Daniel Resnick, “ History of Educational Testing,” in Ability Testing: Uses,
Consequences, and Controversies, Part II, eds. Alexandra K. W igdorand Wen
dell R. G arner (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982), p. 182.
35. Matthew Hale, "History of Employment Testing,” in Ability Testing: Uses,
Consequences, and Controversies. Part II, eds. Alexandra K. Wigdor and Wen
36. Alexandra K. Wigdor and Wendell R. Garner, eds.. Ability Testing: Uses, Con
sequences, and Controversies, Part I (Washington, DC: N ational Academy
Press, 1982), p. 89.
37. Loren Baritz, The Servants o f Power (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University
Press, 1960), p. 67.
38. Daniel J. Kevles. In the Nam e o f Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses o f H uman
Heredity (New York: Knopf, 1985).
39. Kamin, Science and Politics o f IQ.
40. H. H. Goddard. “ Mental Tests and the Immigrant,” The Journal o f Delin
quency 2 {\9\1):24?>-211.
41. Mark Snyderman and R. J. Herrnstein. “Intelligence Tests and the Immigra
tion Act of 1924.” American Psychologist 38 ( 1983):986—995.
42. Edwin G. Boring, "Facts and Fancies of Immigration,” New Republic, 25 April
1923, pp. 245-246; Percy E. Davidson, "The Social Significance of the Army
Intelligence Findings,” Scientific M onthly 16 ( 1923): 184—193; M. B. Hexter
and A. Myerson, “ 13.77 Versus 12.05: A Study in Probable Error,” Mental
Hygiene 8 ( 1924):69—82; Kimball Young, Review of A Study o f American Intel
ligence, Science 57 ( 1923):666—670. See also Gould.
43. Robert Yerkes, Foreword to Carl C. Brigham, A Study o f American Intelligence
(Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 1923).
44. Lewis M. Terman, “Were We Born That Way?” World’s Work 44 ( 1922):655—
660.
45. Terman, Measurement o f Intelligence, p. 72.
46. Ibid.. p. 92.
47. Lippm ann-Term an debate reprinted in N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin, eds..
The IQ Controversy (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), pp. 4-44.
48. Ibid.. p. 37.
49. Lewis M. Terman and Maude A. Merrill, Measuring Intelligence (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1937).
50. David Wechsler. The Measurement o f Adult Intelligence (Baltimore: Williams
& Williams, 1939).
51. Philip H. Dubois, A H istory o f Psychological Testing (Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1970), pp. 112-120.
52. Carl C. Brigham, "Intelligence Tests of Immigrant Groups,” Psychological R e
view 37 (1930): 158-165.
53. Hale, pp. 23-24.
54. Benjamin Fine, “More and More, the IQ Idea Is Questioned,” New York Times
Magazine, 18 September 1949, pp. 7 , 12-1 A.
55. Cited in Hale. p. 26.
56. Baritz, pp. 77-95, 139-166.
57. Theoretically, Americans had always believed that rewards should be dis
tributed on the basis of effort and capacity, but the Protestant establishment
40
The IQ Controversy
that controlled the major institutions of society had assumed that character and
style were im portant in determining these essentials. In the afterm ath of the
war, this view changed rapidly, and tests of intelligence and aptitude were seen
as mechanisms for insuring that the biases inherent in evaluating “character”
no longer interfered with employment decisions or admission to prestigious
colleges and universities. The change reflected a sharp decline in anti-Sem i
tism, for, at that point, high achieving Jews had borne the brunt of such dis
crim ination. Indeed, Jewish intellectuals and professionals were in the
forefront of those pressing for decisions being made solely on the basis of
objective measures of capacity and for the elimination of quota-like arrange
ments that had barred many of them from certain institutions of higher educa
tion. Indeed the shift to “objective” measures of aptitude was partly responsible
for the rapidity with which Jews (and Japanese Americans) advanced in the
post war period. Stanley Rothm an and S. Robert Lichter, Roots o f Radicalism:
Jews, Christians, and the New Left (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).
58. Herbert H. Hyman and Paul B. Sheatsley, “Attitudes toward Desegregation,”
Scientific American (December 1956):35—39.
59. Fine, p. 72.
60. Ibid., p. 74.
61. Frank C. J. McGurk,“ ‘Psychological Tests-A Scientist’s Report on Race Dif
ferences,” U.S. News and World Report 21 September 1956:92-96.
62. Otto Klineberg et al„ “ 18 Social Scientists Discuss: Does Race Really Make a
Difference in Intelligence?” U.S. News and World Report 26 October 1956 74
76.
63. Henry E. G arrett. "The SPSSI and Racial Differences,” American Psychologist
17 (1962):260—263.
64. R. Travis Osborne and Frank C. J. McGurk, The Testing o f Negro Intelligence,
Volume 2 (Athens, GA: The Foundation for Human Understanding, 1982), p.
xiii.
65. Dwight J. Ingle, “Racial Differences and the Future,” Science 146 (1964):375379; comments in Science 146 (1964): 1415-1418, 1526-1530, and Science 147
(1965):6-7.
66. Edward Zigler and Karen Anderson, “An Idea Whose Time Has Come: The
Intellectual and Political Climate for Head S tart,” in Edward Zigler and
Jeanette Valentine, eds.. Project Head Start (New York: Free Press, 1979).
67. Daniel Bell, The Cultural Contradictions o f Capitalism (New York: Basic
Books, 1972); Lawrence M. Friedman, Total Justice (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1985).
68. A rthur R. Jensen, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achieve
ment?" Harvard Educational Review 39 (1969):2.
69. Lee J. Cronbach, “Heredity, Environment, and Educational Policy,” Harvard
Educational Review 39 (1969):90.
70. Westinghouse Learning Corp., The Impact o f H ead Start: An Evaluation o f the
Effects o f H ead Start on Children’s Cognitive and Affective Development. E x
ecutive Sum m ary (Washington, DC: Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
Technical Information, June 1969) (ED 036 321).
71. American Anthropological Association, “Motions,” Newsletter 13 (1972): 12.
72. “The IQ Myth,” 60 M inutes segment. CBS, 26 June 1977.
73. Oliver Gillie, “Crucial Data Was Faked by Eminent Psychologist,” Sunday
Times (London), 24 October 1976; Nicholas Wade, “I.Q. and Heredity: Suspi
cion of Fraud Beclouds Classic Experiment,” Science 194 (1976):916-919.
41
74. See, for example, “Correspondence” in the Bulletin o f the British Psychological
Society throughout 1977.
75. L. S. Hearnshaw, Cyril Burt: Psychologist (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).
76. This clash, at least as it affects opinion and policy toward testing, is not unique
to capitalist society. The Chinese, who have used standardized tests in employ
ment and education for over 3, 000 years, have twice during the past 40 years
eliminated and then reinstated examinations for admission to schools of higher
education. Each time the exams were eliminated as a result of complaints that
certain economic and cultural groups were being disproportionately denied
admission to these schools as a result of the tests, and each time the tests were
reinstated in response to declining academic standards in the universities. The
same pattern is to be found in the Soviet Union, and various Eastern European
countries. After a period during which equal potentials were emphasized, schol
ars in these countries now maintain that differences in IQ are at least partly
determ ined by the genes. Ana Teresa G utierrez and Robert E. Klitgaard,
H igher E ducation and A d m issio n s in the P eople’s R epublic o f C hina
(Cambridge. MA: President and Fellows of Elarvard College, 1982); H. J. Ey
senck. “After Binet, Back to G alton,” Encounter, (February 1983):74—79.
77. “Whatever Became o f ‘Geniuses’?” Time 19 (December 1977):89.
78. R. J. H errnstein, “ IQ Testing and the Media,” Atlantic M onthly, (August
1982):68—74.
79. PASE v. Hannon, 506 ESupp. 831 (N.D. 111. 1980).
80. Howard Gardner, Frames o f Mind: The Theory o f Multiple Intelligences (New
York: Basic Books, 1983); Robert J. Sternberg. Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory
o f H uman Intelligence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
■
2
The Nature of Intelligence
I ain’t no psychiatrist, I ain i no doctor with degrees,
but it don't take too much high IQ to see what you 're
doin' to me.
— " T h i n k ” by A re th a F ra n k lin a n d Ted W h ite ,
F o u r te e n th H o u r M usic, B M I, 1968
In M arch 1921, at a tim e w hen th e practical a p p lica tio n o f m e n tal testin g
w as b egin n in g a d ra m a tic rise, an d before th e pu b lic co n tro v ersy over th e
A rm y testin g results h ad h eated up, th e Jo u rn a l o f E d u ca tio n a l P sychology
p u b lish ed a sy m p o siu m o n “ Intelligence a n d Its M e a su re m e n t,” in w hich
fo u rte en o f th e m o st im p o rta n t m en tal testers briefly expressed th e ir views
on th e to p ic a t h a n d .1 A su b stan tia l m ajo rity o f these ex p e rts ap p eared to
be in ag re em e n t w ith w hat o n e tester called th e “ c o m m o n ly accep ted defi
n itio n o f in tellig en ce” as m e n tal a d a p ta tio n to ch an g in g en v iro n m e n ta l
stim u li (so m etim es called th e capacity to learn). M an y also em p h asized
th a t intelligence is n o t a u n ita ry tra it, a n d th a t o n e m u st m easu re general
in tellectu al capacity by sa m p lin g a w ide variety o f its in te rre la te d su b c o m
p o n e n ts. T h e m a jo r so u rce o f d isa g re e m e n t b etw een re s p o n d e n ts c o n
c e rn ed th e b rea d th o f ad a p tiv e experience to be co n sid ered “ intelligent.”
For exam ple, Lew is T erm an felt th a t “ [a]n in d iv id u al is in tellig en t in p ro
p o rtio n as he is able to c a rry o n ab stra ct th in k in g ,”2 a n d w en t so far as to
castigate those w hose “ sense o f psychological values” was so d istu rb e d as to
believe th a t “ th e in d iv id u al w ho flounders in ab stra ctio n s b u t is able to
h an d le tools skillfully, o r play a good gam e o f baseball, is n o t to be co n sid
ered necessarily less in tellig en t th a n th e in d iv id u al w ho ca n solve m a th e
m atical eq u a tio n s, acq u ire a huge vocabulary, o r w rite poetry.” A t th e o th e r
ex trem e. Brow n U niversity psychologist S. S. C olvin asserted th a t “ in te l
ligence tests sho u ld explore as m a n y aspects o f h u m a n ab ility as possible.” 3
M o st resp o n d e n ts agreed w ith T erm an to th e ex ten t th a t th e y in c lu d ed
43
44
The IQ Controversy
som e fo rm o f higher m e n tal fu n ctio n , like ab stra ct reasoning, p ro b lem
solving, o r d ecision m aking, in th e ir d efin itio n o f intelligence.
Besides th e n a tu re o f intelligence, tw o fu rth e r to p ic s w ere fre q u en tly
discussed by sy m p o siu m p a rtic ip a n ts. R egardin g th e ab ility o f in telligence
tests to m easu re intelligence, tho se ex p e rts h o ld in g b ro a d e r d efin itio n s
w ere n atu ra lly inclin ed to believe th a t tests w ere so m ew h at lim ite d in
c o n te n t. T h u s, for exam ple, T e rm a n ’s suggestions fo r im p ro v in g tests p ri
m arily involved refin em en ts o f existing m odels, w hile C o lv in asserted th a t
tr u e p ra c tic a lity w o u ld re q u ire te sts o f m u c h b r o a d e r sco p e. O n th e
h eritab ility issue, am o n g th o se expressing an o p in io n , th e re w as u n a n
im o u s ag re em e n t th a t tests m e asu red differences in b o th in n a te cap acity
a n d ac q u ired know ledge, a n d th a t intelligence tests b ecam e b e tte r m e a
sures o f cap acity as in d iv id u al differences in th e o p p o rtu n ity to ac q u ire
know ledge w ere equalized.
Id en tical o p in io n s o n th e h e re d ity -e n v iro n m e n t issue w ere expressed by
tw elve m e n tal testers polled by F ra n k F re em a n in 1923.4 T h is survey, p u b
lished in th e C e n tu ry M a g a zin e, covered a w id er ran g e o f to p ic s th a n th e
1921 sy m p o siu m . In a d d itio n to a sta te m e n t a b o u t in n a te cap acity an d
ac q u ired know ledge, F re em a n w as able to get u n a n im o u s o r n ea r u n a n
im o u s ag reem en t to sta te m e n ts in d ic atin g th e u sefulness o f intelligence
tests, th e ir validity as m easu res o f g eneral m e n ta l ability, a n d th a t g ro u p
differences in intelligence are th e result o f differences in b o th e n v iro n m e n t
an d in h e ritan c e. L ike th e 1921 sy m p o siu m , th e co n sen su s b ro k e dow n
w hen F re em a n assessed a g re em e n t w ith th e sta te m e n t th a t g eneral m e n tal
ability “ rep rese n ts ease o f le arn in g in th e in tellectu al field.” E x p erts co u ld
n o t agree as to w h at “th e in tellectu al field” com p rised . S om e b alk ed a t th e
suggestion o f even a tte m p tin g to d ev e lo p a p recise d e fin itio n o f in te l
ligence, claim in g e ith e r th a t th e re w ere insufficient d a ta o r th a t th e q u es
tio n was in c o n seq u e n tia l c o m p ared to th e issues o f w h at th e tests w ere
m easuring, a n d th e possible uses to w hich th ey co u ld be p u t.
T h e C e n tu ry M a g a zin e poll w as p u b lish ed co in cid e n t w ith th e first IQ
controversy. T h e results o f th e poll w ere in strik in g c o n tra st to th e views
expressed by th e p o p u la r critics o f th e day, w h o claim ed th a t in telligence
tests h ad little to d o w ith intelligence, a n d th a t differences in te st scores
w ere m ostly th e resu lt o f differences in train in g . C ritics also p o rtra y ed
m e n ta l te ste rs, in c o rre c tly a c c o rd in g to th e C e n tu ry poll, as b eliev in g
th em selves to be in possession o f p u re m easu res o f in n a te ab ility (see th e
discussion o f W alter L ip p m a n n ’s c o m m e n ts in C h a p te r 1). O n e are a w here
th e critics seem ed to be right a b o u t th e testers was th e ir in a b ility to agree
o n a d efin itio n o f intelligence, a t least in its p articu la rs.
T h e d isa g re em en t am o n g testin g ex p e rts a b o u t a d efin itio n o f in te l
ligence a p p a re n t in th e 1921 a n d 1923 polls m ay very well be an accu rate
45
re p re se n ta tio n o f ex p e rt o p in io n at th e tim e. It m ig h t also reflect th e lack o f
a n y a tte m p t to co n so lid a te responses a n d look fo r u n d erly in g unity. Iro n
ically, th e te c h n iq u e best suited to discover such h id d en stru ctu re , facto r
analysis, was developed as a resu lt o f th e m e n ta l testin g m o v em en t. Yet, it
w as sixty years before an y o n e a tte m p te d to ap p ly facto r analysis to o p in
io n s a b o u t th e n a tu re o f intelligence. In 1981, R o b e rt S tern b erg a n d his
colleagues p u b lish ed th e results o f a survey in w hich a g ro u p o f laypersons
a n d a g ro u p o f p sychologists c o n d u c tin g rese arch o n in te llig en ce w ere
asked how ch a racteristic each o f 250 behaviors is o f an ideally in tellig en t
p e rso n .5 T h e ratings o f th e tw o g roups w ere rem a rk a b ly sim ilar. M o re
im pressive, th e ratings w ith in each g ro u p co u ld be largely ex p lain ed by
th ree u n d erly in g factors (c o m p o n e n ts o f intelligence). A m o n g laypersons
th ese factors w ere labeled “ p ractical p ro b le m -so lv in g ability,” “ verbal ab il
ity,” a n d “social co m p eten ce.” A m ong ex p erts they w ere “ verbal in te l
lig e n c e ,” “ p r o b le m - s o l v in g a b i lity ,” a n d “ p r a c tic a l in te llig e n c e .”
(S tern b erg drew m u c h o f th e im p e tu s for his ow n T riarch ic T heory, in
w hich p ractical intelligence plays a p ro m in e n t role, from th e results o f th is
survey.) T h e la tte r resu lt lends credence to th e c o n te n tio n o f th e APA ad
h oc C o m m itte e on E d u ca tio n a l U ses o f Tests w ith D isad v an tag ed S tu
d en ts, in response to critics o f testing, th a t “th e re is a co n sen su s am o n g
psychologists as to th e k in d s o f b ehaviors th a t are labeled in tellectu al.”6
In 1986, S tern b erg an d D ouglas D e tte rm a n p u b lish ed a b o o k en title d
W h a t Is Intelligence?, an u p d ate o f th e 1921 Jo u rn a l o f E d u ca tio n a l P sy
chology sy m p o siu m , in w hich tw en ty -fiv e c o n te m p o ra ry ex p e rts o n in te l
ligence resp o n d to th e title q u e s tio n .7 T h e results o f th e tw o sym posia
c o n ta in som e strik in g sim ilarities. In each case, th e re is a co n sen su s o f
o p in io n a b o u t th e n a tu re o f intelligence, in th a t th e m o st fre q u en tly m e n
tio n e d elem e n ts o f intelligence are h ig h er-lev el cognitive fu n ctio n s, su ch as
ab stra ct reaso n in g a n d p ro b lem solving. T hese attrib u te s are m e n tio n e d by
a t least h a lf the c o n trib u to rs in each sy m p o siu m . A lso p ro m in e n t in b o th
sym posia, however, is d isag reem en t over th e b re a d th o f th e d efin itio n o f
intelligence, as is d eb ate over w h eth e r intelligence is a general ability o r a
co n c a te n a tio n o f m a n y sep arate ab ilities.8
U n fo rtu n a tely , th e re is little else we can say a b o u t co n sen su s, o r an y
o th e r level o f ag re em e n t o r d isag reem en t am o n g ex p erts o n issues related
to intelligence a n d a p titu d e testing. We have, at presen t, no concise d escrip
tio n o f th e n a tu re an d variety o f ex p e rt o p in io n o n such issues as th e origin
an d stability o f intelligence, test use a n d m isuse, bias in testing, an d racial
a n d ec o n o m ic gro u p differences in IQ. T h e n ext fo u r ch a p te rs o f th is b o o k
will describe th e results o f such a survey. We w ish to em p h asize again th a t
th is survey is n o t m e a n t to settle th e IQ controversy, b u t is m erely an
46
The IQ Controversy
a tte m p t to allow th e ex p e rt voice to be h ea rd in as objective a fo ru m as
possible.
Survey M ethodology
T h e p u rp o se o f th is research w as to survey e x p e rt o p in io n a b o u t th e IQ
controversy. B ecause th e contro v ersy is a b ro ad on e, th e p o p u la tio n th a t
co n stitu te s “ex p e rts” is n o t im m ed ia te ly a p p a re n t. It w as th e re fo re neces
sa ry to d e fin e th e p o p u la tio n th ro u g h th e v a rio u s c o n s id e ra tio n s th a t
g uided sam p le selection. T h ere w ere th ree p rim a ry co n sid eratio n s. F irst,
th e p o p u la tio n w as to be n e ith e r so b ro ad th a t it c o n ta in e d a large p ro p o r
tio n o f in d iv id u als w ith little o r n o ex p erien ce w ith intelligence o r testing,
n o r so n arro w as to in c lu d e on ly tho se w ho m ig h t be co n sid ered to have a
vested in te rest in testing. A n ex am p le o f th e fo rm e r w ould be all p sy ch o lo
gists a n d ed u c ato rs, w hile th e la tte r p o p u la tio n m ig h t co n sist o nly o f m e m
bers o f th e N atio n al C o u n c il on M e a su re m e n t in E d u c a tio n (N C M E ).
N C M E m e m b ers u n d o u b te d ly are ex p e rts o n testing, b u t th ere are m a n y
social scientists a n d ed u c ato rs w ho can reasonably^ be assu m ed to have
know ledge o f th e ac ad e m ic lite ra tu re o n at least so m e aspects o f th e IQ
controversy, b u t w ho d o n o t deal w ith tests as an essential p a rt o f th e ir
w ork. We w ished to in c lu d e these in d iv id u als as well.:
T h e second co n sid eratio n in defining a p o p u la tio n o f ex p erts w as to
in c lu d e in d iv id u als w ith a w ide v ariety o f perspectives o n th e p ro b lem ,
even tho se w ho m ight have expertise on on ly a sm all p a rt o f th e c o n tro
versy. F or th is purp o se, th e p o p u la tio n w as div id ed in to p rim a ry a n d sec
o n d a ry g ro u p s. P rim a ry g ro u p s w ere th o se p ro fe ssio n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s
w hose m e m b ers m ig h t be expected to be know ledgeable o n several I Q related topics. S eco n d ary g ro u p s w ere o rg an iz atio n s w hose m em b ers w ere
likely to know testin g fro m only a n arro w perspective. P rim a ry g ro u p s
in c lu d e d th e A m e ric a n E d u c a tio n a l R e se a rc h A sso c ia tio n (A E R A ),
N C M E , a n d th e D ev e lo p m e n tal Psychology, E d u ca tio n a l Psychology, E val
u a tio n a n d M e asu rem en t, a n d S chool P sychology d iv isio n s o f th e A m er
ic a n P sy ch o lo g ica l A sso c ia tio n (APA). S e c o n d a ry g ro u p s c o n s is te d o f
m e m b ers o f th e A m eric an Sociological A sso ciatio n (ASA) id en tified as
sociologists o f e d u c atio n (in clu d ed for ex p ertise in th e role o f te stin g in
society), th e B ehavior G en e tic s A ssociation (for ex p ertise in heritability),
th e C ognitive Science Society (for expertise o n th e n a tu re o f intelligence
an d cognitive abilities), a n d tw o o th e r divisio n s o f th e APA, C o u n selin g
Psychology (for expertise in th e use o f tests in counseling), an d In d u strial
a n d O rg a n iz atio n a l Psychology (for expertise in e m p lo y m e n t testing).
T h e final criterio n was th a t th e sam p le be w eighted in favor o f th o se w ith
th e m o st expertise, as in d ic ated by research an d p u b lic atio n s o n issues
47
related to intelligence an d testing. T herefore, on ly sch o larly o rg an izatio n s
w ere sam pled. T h e sam ple w as also w eighted tow ard th o se o rg an izatio n s,
a n d m em b ers o f th e org an izatio n s, th o u g h t to have th e m o st expertise.
B ecause m e m b ers o f p rim a ry g roups w ere believed to have m o re overall
e x p ertise th a n m em b ers o f se co n d a ry groups, tw ice as m a n y m e m b ers w ere
selected from each p rim a ry g ro u p as from each se co n d a ry group. For th o se
o rg an iz atio n s w here it was possible to se p arate Ph. D. fro m n o n - P h . D.
m em b ers, only m e m b ers w ith d o cto ra tes w ere sam pled . W ith in each d iv i
sion o f th e APA th e re are tw o classes o f Ph. D. m em b ers. M em b ers an d
Fellows. M em bers need only have a psychology Ph. D. Fellows m u st first
have been M em bers, m u st have a t least five years o f ex p erien ce in p sy ch o l
ogy b ey o n d th e Ph. D. , a n d m u st be n o m in a te d an d elected by o th e r APA
m em b ers based on “ evidence o f u n u su a l an d o u tsta n d in g c o n trib u tio n or
p e rfo rm a n c e in th e field o f psychology.” D espite th e fact th a t th e re are far
few er Fellows th a n M em bers w ithin each division, h a lf o f th e sam p le from
each division w as draw n from th e Fellows a n d h a lf from th e M em bers.
T h e sam ple was draw n random ly, in the n u m b e rs in d ic ated in Table 2.1.
from th e m o st recen t available m e m b ersh ip d ire c to ry o f each o f th e o rg an
izatio ns. T h e final sam p le co n sisted o f 1,020 social scien tists a n d ed u cato rs.
T h e q u e stio n n a ire itself w as d ivided in to six sections. F o u r o f these
TABLE 2.1
Composition of Survey Sample
Primary Groups
American Educational Research Association
National Council on Measurement in Education
American Psychological Association:
Developmental Psychology
Educational Psychology
Evaluation and Measurement
School Psychology
Secondary Groups
American Sociological Association: Education
Behavior Genetics Association
Cognitive Science Society
American Psychological Association: Counseling Psychology
Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Total
N
120
120
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Fellows
Members
Fellows
Members
Fellows
Members
Fellows
Members
60
60
60
30
30
30
30
Fellows
Members
Fellows
Members
1,020
48
The IQ Controversy
co n ta in e d su b stan tiv e q u estio n s a b o u t intelligence a n d testing, a n d tw o
asked a b o u t vario u s d e m o g ra p h ic a n d b ac k g ro u n d ch a racteristics o f th e
resp o n d e n ts. T h e scope o f th e su b stan tiv e q u estio n s w as in te n d e d to in
clu d e m o st areas o f c o n te n tio n w ith in th e relev an t ac ad e m ic literatu re ,
w ith an em p h asis on areas o f p a rtic u la r c o n c e rn in th e p u b lic d ebate.
T h e first su b stan tiv e section, labeled “ T h e N a tu re o f In tellig en ce,” will
be th e focus o f d iscussion in th is chapter. T h e rem a in in g th ree su b stan tiv e
sectio n s d ea lt w ith “ T h e H erita b ility o f IQ ,” “ R ace, Class, an d C u ltu ra l
D ifferences in IQ ,” a n d “ T h e U se o f Intelligence T esting,” a n d will be
co n sid ered in th e follow ing chapters.
T h e first o f th e tw o d e m o g ra p h ic sections o f th e q u e stio n n a ire , “ P rofes
sio n a l A ctiv itie s a n d In v o lv e m e n t w ith In tellig en c e T estin g ,” w as c o n
c e rn e d p rim a rily w ith m e a su rin g e x p e rtise a n d p u b lic ex p o su re . T h is
section also co n ta in e d tw o m u lti- p a r t q u estio n s o f a m o re su b stan tiv e
n atu re . T h e first asked resp o n d e n ts to rate each o f te n d ifferen t new s
sources for accu racy in re p o rtin g issues related to in tellig en ce a n d testing.
T h e second asked for ratin g s o f fo u rte en different a u th o rs as to th e q u ality
o f th e ir w ork o n intelligence a n d testing.
T h e final se ctio n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire , “ P erso n al a n d S ocial B ack
g ro u n d ,” asked a b o u t th e re sp o n d e n t’s sex, age, m a rital statu s, e th n ic an d
religious b ac k g ro u n d , an d c h ild h o o d fam ily in co m e. A g reem en t o r d is
a g re em e n t w ith a series o f political sta te m en ts, an d a global p o litical m e a
su re (lib e ra l-c o n s e rv a tiv e ) w ere u se d to assess re s p o n d e n ts ’ p o litic a l
perspectives.
Follow ing p re -te s tin g w ith v arious g ro u p s o f testin g ex p erts, 1,020 q u es
tio n n a ire s w ere m ailed in S ep te m b er o f 1984. A cover le tte r ex p lain ed th e
p u rp o se o f th e q u e stio n n a ire (to help clarify co n fu sio n over testing), its
im p o rta n c e in light o f the w idespread use an d co n tro v ersy over tests, a n d
p ro m ise d co m p lete co n fid e n tia lity (the q u e s tio n n a ire itself co n ta in e d an
ID n u m b e r for th e p u rp o se o f fo llo w -u p m ailings). B ecause m a n y resp o n d
e n ts w ere n o t expected to have ex p ertise in all areas o f testing, th e cover
le tte r asked subjects to check th e N Q (N o t Q ualified) resp o n se fo r an y
q u e stio n th ey d id n o t feel q ualified to answ er. T h is categ o ry also served for
N o R e sp o n se /D o n ’t Know.
A p p ro x im ately tw o w eeks after th e in itial m ailin g , p o stc ard re m in d e rs
w ere sent to all subjects w ho h ad n o t yet resp o n d ed . A b o u t fo u r w eeks later,
a second set o f q u e stio n n a ire s w as sen t o u t to th e re m a in in g n o n re sp o n
den ts. T h e final response tally c o n ta in e d 661 co m p leted q u e stio n n a ire s (65
percent). T h e re was little v aria tio n in response rate betw een th e v ario u s
p rim a ry a n d se co n d a ry g roups w ith in th e sam ple. F o rty -n in e su b jects re
tu rn e d th e ir q u e stio n n a ire s in d ic atin g th e y w ere n o t q u alified to an sw er
an y o f th e su b stan tiv e q u estio n s. S eventeen sub jects w ere deceased o r o th
49
erw ise in c a p a c ita te d , a n d tw e n ty -se v e n su b je cts sim p ly r e tu rn e d th e ir
q u e s tio n n a ire s u n an sw ered w ith n o ex p lan a tio n .
Two h u n d re d six ty -six , o r 26 p erc en t o f th e q u e stio n n a ire s were n o t
re tu rn e d at all. P h o n e calls w ere m ad e to forty (15 p ercen t) o f th ese n o n res
p o n d e n ts in o rd er to d e te rm in e if they differed in an y im p o rta n t way from
re sp o n d e n ts a n d to as ce rta in th e ir reasons for n o n resp o n se. T h ese subjects
w ere asked som e o f th e m o re im p o rta n t su b stan tiv e a n d d em o g ra p h ic
q u estio n s, w ith m ixed success; these w ere in d iv id u als w ho h ad alread y n o t
resp o n d e d to th ree m ailings. T h e ir responses to q u estio n s for w hich th ere
w ere a sufficient n u m b e r o f answ ers for m e an in g fu l co m p ariso n w ere n o t
significantly different from th o se o f re sp o n d e n ts to th e m ailed q u e s tio n
n aire. M ore in fo rm a tiv e p erh ap s w ere th e reasons th ese su b jects gave for
n o t responding. All forty subjects answ ered th is q u estio n . T w en ty -th ree
said th a t they w ere to o busy to resp o n d , a n d tw elve d id n o t feel qualified.
O n ly six expressed an y aversion to th e q u e stio n n a ire itself (resp o n d en ts
co u ld give m o re th a n o n e reason). In all. given th e n a tu re o f responses
received fro m th e p h o n e sam ple, a n d th e ir reaso n s for n o t resp o n d in g to
th e m ailed q u e stio n n a ire , th e re seem s little reason to believe th a t th e re
sults w ould look significantly d ifferent h ad th e en tire sam p le o f 1,020 p a r
ticip ated .
P rofessional A ctivities and Involvement with Intelligence Testing
T h e professional b ac k g ro u n d ch a racteristics o f survey re sp o n d e n ts are
su m m arize d in T able 2.2. T h e degree o f expertise a b o u t in telligence a n d
testin g varies w idely a m o n g resp o n d e n ts, b u t, o n th e w hole, th e sam p le is
ad eq u ately ch a racterize d as ex p ert. A p p ro x im ately h a lf o f all re sp o n d e n ts
are faculty m em b ers at a college o r university, a n d th e b u lk o f th e re
m a in d e r classify th e m se lv es as p sychologists o r e d u c a tio n a l sp ecialists
TABLE 2.2
Expertise of Sample
Characteristic
College or university faculty
Other psychologist or educational specialist
Current research on intelligence or testing
Articles or chapters on intelligence or testing3
Speeches or lectures on intelligence or testing3
Served as news media source on intelligence or testing3
Administered individual intelligence test3
Administered group intelligence test3
¡■Within th e p re v io u s tw o years.
% of Respondents
53.3
36.1
55
67
57
33
38.5
29.3
50
The IQ Controversy
w orking in so m e o th e r cap acity (e.g., in e le m e n ta ry a n d se co n d a ry e d u c a
tio n , for g o v ern m e n t, for th e testin g industry). F ifty -fiv e p erc en t a re p la n
n in g o r c a rry in g o u t rese arch in so m e a re a re la te d to in te llig en c e o r
intelligence testing. T h e m o st c o m m o n areas o f research are th e n a tu re o f
intelligence, test d e v e lo p m e n t an d v alid atio n , a n d testin g in e le m e n ta ry
a n d se co n d a ry schools.
S ix ty -sev en p erc en t o f re sp o n d e n ts have w ritten a t least o n e artic le or
ch a p te r related to intelligence o r testing, a n d 57 p e rc e n t h a d given a t least
o n e such speech o r lectu re to o th e r th a n a classro o m au d ien c e d u rin g th e
p rev io u s tw o years. T h e m e an n u m b e r o f articles w ritten is eleven (m ed ian
n u m b e r o f article s am o n g all resp o n d e n ts is three), w ith articles w ritte n for
a n acad e m ic /p ro fe ssio n a l au d ien c e a b o u t five tim es m o re c o m m o n th a n
tho se w ritten for a general au d ien ce. T h e m o st c o m m o n artic le to p ics
p arallel th o se for areas o f research.
T h e ce n tral p u rp o se o f o u r research a n d th is b o o k is to te st c e rta in
p ro p o sitio n s a b o u t th e ch a n g in g p a tte rn s o f c o m m u n ic a tio n o f scientific
contro v ersy to an increasingly ed u c ated public. We h y p o th esized th a t in a
n u m b e r o f areas, o f w hich intelligence a n d a p titu d e te stin g is o n e, such
c o m m u n ic a tio n is d isto rte d , i.e., th a t th e views o f th e relev an t e x p e rt c o m
m u n ity are re p o rte d in a cc u ra tely to th e a tte n tiv e p u b lic by th e elite m ed ia.
T h e d isto rtio n o ccurs because o f th e changin g values a n d p erc ep tio n s o f
th e in tellectu al co m m u n ity , a n d th e key role o f an elite m e d ia th a t shares
such values. T h is d isto rtio n is n o t a fu n c tio n o f co n scio u s bias, b u t ra th e r
o f u n d erly in g assu m p tio n s th a t define th e n a tu re o f reality to jo u rn a lis ts
a n d in tellectu als alike.
In som e areas, such as testing, we believe th a t th e ex p e rt c o m m u n ity has
m o re o r less accep ted such d isto rtio n s as inev itab le. Since th e ir scientific
findings ru n c o u n te r to a c o n v e n tio n a l w isdom w hose su p p o rte rs are q u ite
p assio n ate, th ey have accep ted a tra d e o ff th a t p e rm its th e m to p u b lish th e ir
findings in p ro fessional jo u rn a ls , b u t n o t for p o p u la r co n su m p tio n . U n d e r
such circ u m sta n ce s th ey can c o n tin u e th e ir scientific w ork w ith o u t th e fear
o f being pillo ried by th e larger c o m m u n ity an d o f b eing d ep riv ed o f g ran ts
fo r research by g o v e rn m e n t agencies a n d p riv ate fo u n d atio n s. So fully have
m a n y ex p e rts accep ted th is a rra n g e m e n t th a t th ey are an g ered by co l
leagues w ith w h o m th ey agree b u t w ho p o p u la rize th e ir views a n d th u s
th re a te n th e ir scientific w ork.
T h u s, we m a in ta in , a society th a t prides itself o n its o p en n ess to scien
tific findings (w hich w ere o n ce ignored o r censo red o n ly by co n servatives)
now indulges in its ow n fo rm s o f subtle ce n so rsh ip by rem o v in g th e d iscu s
sion o f so m e scientific issues from ratio n al pu b lic d isc o u rse.9
To test these h ypo th eses o u r first task has been to su m m a riz e th e views o f
th e ex p e rt c o m m u n ity as accu rately as possible. T h e d iscussion th a t fol
51
lows in th is a n d the next th ree ch ap ters, w hile in c lu d in g th e results o f o u r
survey o f ex p e rt o p in io n , will necessarily be b ro a d e r in scope th a n the
q u e stio n n a ire itself. T h e q u e stio n n a ire was c o n c e rn e d w ith o n ly those to p
ics w here th e re is c o n te n tio n w ith in th e scholarly literatu re , o r w here th e re
is significant pu b lic d ebate. A full u n d e rsta n d in g o f these to p ics, however,
req u ires a d iscussion o f basic testin g issues, in c lu d in g th o se for w hich th e re
is a clear co n sen su s am o n g th o se w ho study tests.
U n fo rtu n a tely , th e re are v irtu a lly no issues c o n c e rn in g te stin g on w hich
everyone agrees. To ta k e seriously all arg u m e n ts a b o u t testin g w o u ld p u t us
in a p o sitio n in w hich n e ith e r we n o r o u r read ers w ould an y lo n g er be able
to d istinguish the forest from th e trees. W hile we are n o t in a p o sitio n to
ju d g e th e tru th o f ex p e rt sta te m e n ts in every area, o u r read in g o f th e
p sy ch o m etric literatu re ind icates th a t th e re are c e rta in p o sitio n s for w hich
th e em p irical verification is so strong, a n d th e scholarly co n sen su s so over
w h elm in g (e.g., th a t IQ is a significant p re d ic to r o f ac ad e m ic success), th a t
we feel justified in sta tin g th e m as facts. T h e explicit sacrifice has been to
trad e off co m p lete coverage o f th e m o st radical p o sitio n s, b o th in a n d o u t
o f th e ex p e rt co m m u n ity , for clarity o f exp o sitio n . O u r fu n d a m e n ta l p re
m ise has been to take seriously as a scientific en terp rise a tte m p ts to u n d e r
s ta n d a n d m e a su re in te lle c tu a l fu n c tio n in g . D e sp ite o u r a tte m p ts to
rem a in objective, we realize th a t th e re are tho se to w h o m th is e n tire p ro ject
is w orthless, o r w orse, because it legitim ates w h at they see as an exercise in
p o litical oppression.
T he D efinition of Intelligence
A ccording to C yril B urt, th e w ord “ in tellig en ce,” o riginally from the
L atin , w as revived by H erb ert S pencer a n d F ran cis G a lto n in th e m id
n in e te e n th c e n tu ry as a scientific te rm m e an in g “ in n a te, g eneral cognitive
c a p a c ity ” : in n a te, m e an in g in h e rited , a n d n o t ac q u ired th ro u g h ex p e ri
ence; general, as in ability ap p licab le to a w ide variety o f circu m stan ces;
a n d cognitive, as op p o sed to m o tiv atio n al o r e m o tio n a l.10 It was th is d efin i
tio n B inet an d S im o n had in m in d , B urt argues, w hen th ey develo p ed th e
1905 scale. O nly later in th e c e n tu ry did th e te rm e n te r everyday language,
b ec o m in g im b u e d w ith a p ro liferatio n o f m eaning.
A n e x a m in a tio n o f th e w ritings o f Binet a n d S im o n reveals th a t, like
m ost test d evelopers w ho have follow ed th e m , they w ere m o re co n c ern ed
w ith m e a su re m e n t th a n defin itio n . T h o u g h so m e tim es sp eak in g o f ju d g
m e n t as th e basic facto r in intelligence, Binet a n d S im o n believed th a t
sa m p lin g from a w ide variety o f m e n tal processes w ould en ab le th em to
dev elop a co m p lete p ic tu re o f in tellectu al fu n ctio n in g , w ith o u t having to
w o rry a b o u t w hat intelligence really was. M any o f th e m e n ta l testers sur-
52
The IQ Controversy
veyed in 1921 a n d 1923 ec hoed th ese se n tim e n ts: th e o re tic al q u e stio n s
a b o u t th e n a tu re o f intelligence are n e ith e r as assessable, n o r as im p o r ta n t
as in q u iry in to w h at it is th a t intelligence tests m easu re.
Sixty years o f s u b se q u en t research o n m e n tal ab ilities has m ad e it clear
th a t “ [i]ntelligence . . . is easier to m easu re th a n to define.” 11 T h ere exists
to d a y an ex trem ely b ro a d sp e ctru m o f th e o ries a n d d efin itio n s o f in te l
ligence, ran g in g from p urely biological d escrip tio n s based o n speed o f n e u
ral tra n sm issio n to o v erarch in g th e o ries like th a t o f H o w ard G ard n er, in
w hich th e re is n o t one, b u t seven different intellig en ces en c o m p a ssin g vir
tu a lly th e en tire realm o f h u m a n ab ilities.12 To m any, th is state o f affairs
u n d e rm in e s th e e n tire te stin g en terp rise. W alter L ip p m a n n ’s 1923 assertio n
th a t “ [w]e c a n n o t m easu re intelligence w hen we have n ev er defin ed it” 13
has been ec h o ed by scores o f critics in th e in te rv e n in g years.
T h e resp o n se o f m a n y w ho develop a n d v alid ate in tellig en ce tests has
been to show g reat deferen ce to th e o p e ra tio n a l d efin itio n th a t intelligence
is w h atev er intelligence tests m e a su re .14 T h is is n o t to say th a t m o d e rn
p sy c h o m etric ia n s have b lin d ly ac ce p te d so naiv e a d o ctrin e. T h e re is great
c o n c e rn a m o n g th o se w ho stu d y intelligence tests a b o u t th e re la tio n sh ip o f
te st results to vario u s lay a n d te ch n ic al d efin itio n s o f in tellig en ce, as w ell as
w ith th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f new th e o ry a n d m eth o d o lo g y in in tellig en ce te st
in g .15 A nd th e re is ce rta in ly n o sh o rtag e o f d efin itio n s o f in tellig en ce of
f e r e d b y m o d e r n t h e o r e tic ia n s , a s th e S te r n b e r g a n d D e tt e r m a n
sy m p o siu m d em o n strate s. T aking o p e ra tio n a lism seriously m erely shifts
th e focus away fro m th e rela tio n sh ip betw een in telligence tests a n d “ in te l
ligence” b ro ad ly defined. Instead, a d efin itio n o f in tellig en ce is deriv ed
from th e v ario u s m e th o d s by w hich tests are v alid ated , in p a rtic u la r th e
rela tio n sh ip te st results b ea r to som e specifically defin ed criteria. T h e o p er
a tio n a list response w as sta te d explicitly by T. A n n e C leary a n d h er co l
leagues o n th e APA ad hoc c o m m itte e w hen th ey claim ed th a t “th e re is a
co n sen su s a m o n g psychologists as to th e k in d s o f b eh av io rs th a t are labeled
in te lle c tu a l,” a n d th a t th is co n sen su s is b o th exem p lified an d defin ed by
th e g reat sim ila rity o f c o n te n t o f m o d e rn intellig en ce te sts.16
A n im p o rta n t d istin c tio n m u st be m ad e a t th is p o in t. T raditionally, th e re
has been a split w ith in psychology betw een th o se in te reste d p rim a rily in
th e n a tu re o f intelligence a n d cognitive abilities (cognitive scientists) an d
th o se w hose in te rest in intelligence is closely tied to th e ab ility to m easu re
it (psychom etricians). T h is split is a p p a re n t in a c o m p a riso n o f th e 1921
a n d 1986 sy m p o sia o n th e d efin itio n o f intelligence. T h e fu n d a m e n ta l
difference betw een th e tw o sym posia is in th e g rea ter e la b o ra tio n o f d efin i
tio n in 1986. In general, th e la ter d efin itio n s are m o re d etailed a n d highly
stru c tu re d , draw ing o n d a ta an d th e o ry from a v ariety o f d iscip lin es, in
clu d in g d ev e lo p m e n ta l psychology, neurobiology, th e stu d y o f m e n ta l re
53
ta rd a tio n , an d artificial intelligence. T h is e la b o ra tio n derives from fu n d a
m e n tal changes in the way intelligence is stu d ied . In 1921, intelligence was
th e p rovince o f th e m e n ta l testers, a n d sy m p o siu m p a rtic ip a n ts w ere p rin
cipally c o n c e rn e d w ith th e c o n s tru c t as it related to m e a su re m e n t an d
p red ic tio n . In 1986, m a n y o f tho se w ho stu d y intelligence, a n d w ho c o n
trib u te d to th e sy m p o siu m , are n o t p sy c h o m etrician s, an d it is c o m m o n for
these scientists to be m o re c o n c e rn e d w ith th e o ry th a n w ith m e asu rem en t.
T h is b o o k is c o n c e rn e d w ith th e controversy over in tellig en ce a n d a p
titu d e testing; it is n o t in te n d e d as a survey o f co g nitive science, o r o f
th e o ry o n intelligence div o rced from testin g issues. O u r d iscu ssio n o f th e
n a tu re o f intelligence is, therefo re, m o re closely tied to th e rela tio n betw een
th e c o n c e p t a n d its m e a su re m e n t (i.e., tra d itio n a l p sy c h o m etric co n c ern s,
exem plified by th e 1921 sy m p o siu m p a rtic ip a n ts) th a n to th e m o re b ro ad ly
defined c o n c ep tio n s o f cognitive th e o rists (like m an y o f th o se in th e 1986
sym p osium ). As n o te d a t th e en d o f ch a p te r 1, these n ew er co n c ep tio n s,
w hich m ay radically change b o th th e th e o ry a n d m e a su re m e n t o f in te l
ligence, have, as yet, h ad little im p a c t o n th e IQ controversy.
In an y case, th e d efin itio n s p ro v id ed by th e 1921 a n d 1986 p a rtic ip a n ts
are n o t radically different. H ig h er-lev e l processes, like a b s tra c t reaso n in g
a n d p ro b lem solving, figure p ro m in e n tly in b o th sets o f d efin itio n s (several
1986 d efin itio n s in c lu d e executive processes, a c o m p u te r-a g e te rm refer
rin g to h ig h er-lev el c o n tro l functions). R o b e rt S tern b erg a n d C y n th ia Berg
have tallied th e vario u s a ttrib u te s o f intelligence m e n tio n e d by c o n trib
u to rs to the tw o sym posia, an d find th a t these tw o sets o f freq u en cies
c o rrela te 0 .5 0 .17 T h e im p o rta n t d istin c tio n , fo r o u r p u rp o ses, is th a t th e
c o n c ep tio n s o f intelligence m o st relev an t to th e IQ co n tro v ersy are those,
fro m w hatever era, th a t are fu n d a m e n ta lly c o n c e rn e d w ith m e asu rem en t.
N . J. Block a n d G erald D w o rk in in th e ir ed ited b o o k T h e IQ C ontroversy
p rese n t an essay o f th e ir ow n en title d “ IQ , H eritability, a n d In e q u a lity ”
th a t is p erh a p s th e best available sta te m e n t o f th e m a jo r arg u m e n ts ag ain st
in te llig e n c e te s ts in th e a re a s o f th e n a tu r e o f in te llig e n c e a n d IQ
h eritab ility .18 In th e first p a rt o f th e ir essay, th e a u th o rs a tta c k th e o p e ra
tio n a list d o ctrin e, p rim a rily for its ath eo retica l n atu re . T h ey argue th a t th e
d ev e lo p m e n t o f m e an in g fu l tests o f intelligence c a n n o t p ro ceed in d e p e n
d en tly o f a th e o ry o f intelligence. O n e m u st have at least so m e idea o f w hat
in telligence is in o rd e r to create an intelligence test. W ith o u t a theory,
Block an d D w orkin claim , p sy c h o m etric ia n s have h ad to rely heavily o n
in tu itiv e n o tio n s o f intelligence in the in itial co n s tru c tio n o f tests. S u b se
q u e n t v alid atio n has p rim a rily consisted o f c o rre la tio n w ith previously
accep ted tests. (T his m ay a c c o u n t for C leary et al.’s “co nsensus.” ) T h u s, th e
h isto rical d ev e lo p m e n t o f intelligence testin g has been a “ technological,
n o t a sc ie n tific p ro ce ss.” 19 T h e in tu itiv e n o tio n s o n w h ich th is te c h
54
The IQ Controversy
nological process is based m ig h t b ea r little rese m b la n ce to w h at in tellig en ce
really is (if th e re w ere a unified theory). In a tru e scientific process, m e a
su re m e n t an d th e o ry m u st progress together. (T erm an m a d e essentially th e
sam e p o in t in 1916.)20 In th e absence o f theory, tech n o lo g ical progress
p ro d u ce s b e tte r an d b e tte r ways to m easu re q u a n titie s w hose rela tio n sh ip
to “ in te llig en ce” is unk n o w n .
O p eratio n alists m ay offer som e defense by p o in tin g o u t th a t it is n o t th e
rela tio n sh ip betw een test scores a n d “ in te llig en ce” th a t is im p o rta n t. T h a t
rela tio n sh ip is defined by th e p rin cip al te n e t o f o p era tio n alism . W h a t is
im p o rta n t is how test scores relate to c e rta in o th e r crite ria like success in
school a n d in th e jo b m ark et. As T erm a n w arn ed in 1921, “ th e valid ity o f a
new test sh o u ld n o t be ju d g e d en tirely by its co rre la tio n w ith existing tests,
how ever good these m ay be. T h ere m u st be c o n tin u e d search for useful
o u tsid e criteria.”21 B ut o n e m u st still have som e in d e p e n d e n t n o tio n o f
intelligence by w hich to d ecide th e usefulness o f an e x tern al criterio n .
T erm an co n tin u es, “ O n th e o th e r h an d , in o u r an x iety to escape th e evils o f
a closed system we m u st g u ard against in d isc rim in a te a n d ill-c o n sid e re d
use o f o u tsid e criteria. To c o n d e m n an intelligen ce te st b ecau se it yields low
c o rre la tio n s w ith success as a m ill h a n d o r stree tc ar m o to rm a n is an e x a m
ple o f th is erro r."22 O bviously, being a good m o to rm a n req u ires little o f
w h at T erm an co n sid ers intelligence. T h e p o in t is, s o m e in d e p e n d e n t n o
tio n o f intelligence is necessary in o rd e r to d ecide w h eth e r a test th a t
p red icts success as a m ill h a n d o r stree tc ar m o to rm a n sh o u ld be co n sid ered
a good test o f intelligence. T h a t such a test m ig h t c o rre la te p o o rly w ith
o th e r intelligence tests is in a d e q u a te g ro u n d s fo r rejectio n unless th e re are
in d e p e n d e n t reasons for believing th e o th e r tests are b e tte r m easu res o f
intelligence.
In th e end, th e real conflict betw een tho se w h o criticize th e ath eo retica l
n a tu re o f intelligence testin g a n d te stin g ’s su p p o rte rs co m es d ow n to how
m u c h fuzziness in th e d efin itio n o f intelligence is to be to le rate d . C ritics
p o in t to th e lack o f a unified th e o ry o r u n iversally agreed u p o n d efin itio n
o f intelligence. D efenders seem c o n te n t w ith th e high c o rre la tio n betw een
scores on d isp a ra te tests, as well as th e stro n g rela tio n sh ip betw een test
results an d alm o st an y c o m m o n sense c riterio n o f intelligence.
U n fo rtu n a tely , m a n y stro n g believers in th e valid ity o f in telligence tests
use th e w ord “ in tellig en ce” ra th e r m o re freely th a n th ey should. A u th o rs
will o ften discuss b o th th e te ch n ic al an d in tu itiv e d efin itio n s o f in telligence
in th e sam e d o c u m e n t, a n d th e reference o f an y p a rtic u la r ap p e a ra n c e o f
th e w ord is o ften am b ig u o u s. T h e im p re ssio n given by su ch w ritings is
m isleading: th a t o n e ’s in tu itiv e idea o f intelligence, a n d th e results o f in te l
ligence tests, are sy n o n y m o u s.
Intelligence is a fuzzy c o n c ep t th a t req u ires a fuzzy d efin itio n . A s D o u g
55
las D e tte rm a n p u t it in c o m p a rin g th e 1986 sy m p o siu m resu lts to those
from 1921:
Though the definitions provided by this symposium may be more refined,
substantial disagreement on a single definition still abounds. It is probably
foolish to expect this symposium, or even one held 65 years from now, to
come to a unanim ous conclusion. A concept as complex as intelligence prob
ably cannot be captured by a single definition without gross oversimplifica
tion.23
1. It has been a rgued th a t there is a consensus a m o n g p sych o lo g ists a n d
educators as to th e k in d s o f behaviors th a t are la b eled "intelligent." D o
yo u agree or disagree that there is such a consensus?
R e sp o n d en ts are in clin ed to agree th a t th e re is a co n sen su s. F ifty -th re e
p e rc e n t eith er so m ew h at o r strongly agree, c o m p a re d to 39.5 p erc en t w ho
disagree in som e m an n er. T h e re m a in in g 7.5 p erc en t d id n o t resp o n d to th e
q u estio n . T hese results d o n o t d e m o n stra te , o f course, th a t a co n sen su s
actu ally exists (q u estio n 3 is d irec ted at th a t issue), b u t it is th e case th a t
m o st o f th e ex p erts in o u r sam p le have th e p erc ep tio n th a t th ey are w orking
w ith in a co m m o n ly accep ted fram ew ork.
2. D o yo u believe that, on th e whole, th e d evelopm en t o f in telligence tests
h a s p roceeded in th e co n text o f an ad eq u a te th eo ry o f intelligence?
O u r ex p e rt sa m p le is p re d o m in a n tly in ag re em e n t w ith th is fu n d a m e n ta l
critiq u e. F ifty -fo u r p erc en t o f tho se surveyed answ er “ N o ” to th is q u e s
tio n , co m p ared to 34 p erc en t w ho answ er “ Yes.” T h e rem a in in g 12 p erc en t
d o n o t respond. T h e o b v io u s fo llo w -u p q u estio n , w hich, u n fo rtu n a te ly , we
d id n o t ask, is “ D oes th is m ak e an y difference to th e valid ity o f th e tests?”
To Block a n d D w orkin, the lack o f a unified th e o ry o f intelligence severely
red u ces th e validity an d usefulness o f intelligence tests. M o st ex p erts in o u r
sa m p le agree w ith th e p rem ise o f th is a rg u m e n t. R e su lts fro m th e re
m a in d e r o f th e q u e stio n n a ire , however, d e m o n stra te th a t th ese ex p e rts do
n o t share Block an d D w o rk in ’s pessim istic co n c lu sio n a b o u t tests.
3. Im p o rta n t elem en ts o f intelligence.
R e sp o n d en ts w ere asked to check all b ehavioral d escrip to rs listed (th ere
w ere th irte e n , a n d space for w riting in o thers) th a t th ey believe to be an
im p o rta n t elem e n t o f intelligence. T h is q u estio n a tte m p ts to assess directly
th e n a tu re o f co n sen su s a b o u t th e d efin itio n o f intelligence.
R esults are show n in Table 2.3. R esponse rate w as 93 p ercen t. D escrip-
56
The IQ Controversy
TABLE 2.3
Important Elements of Intelligence
Descriptor
Abstract thinking or reasoning •
Problem solving ability
Capacity to acquire knowledge
Memory
Adaptation to one’s environm ent
Mental speed
Linguistic competence
Mathematical competence
General knowledge
Creativity
Sensory acuity
Goal-directedness
Achievement motivation
% of Respondents
Checking as Important
99.3
97.7
96
80.5
77.2
71.7
71
67.9
62.4
59.6
24.4
24
18.9
■
to rs fall in to o n e o f th ree w ell-d e fin ed categories: th o se fo r w hich th e re is
n e a r u n a n im ity (greater th a n 96 p erc en t a g re em e n t am o n g th o se w ho a n
sw ered th e q u e stio n )— “a b stra c t th in k in g o r rea so n in g ,” “ th e ca p ac ity to
a c q u ire know ledge,” a n d “ p ro b lem solving ab ility ” ; th o se ch eck ed by a
m ajo rity o f resp o n d e n ts (6 0 -8 0 p erc en t)— “a d a p ta tio n to o n e ’s e n v iro n
m e n t,” “creativity,” “general know ledge,” “ ling u istic c o m p e te n c e ,” “ m a th
e m atical co m p e te n c e ,” “ m e m o ry ,” an d “ m e n tal sp eed ” ; a n d th o se rarely
checked (less th a n 25 p e rc e n t)— “ac h ie v e m e n t m o tiv a tio n ,” “g o a l-d ire c te d n ess,” a n d “ sensory acuity.” T h e m o st c o m m o n ly ad d e d b eh av io ral d e
sc rip to rs are “social o r in te rp e rso n a l c o m p e te n c e ,” “ sp atial ability,” an d
“ integ rativ e capacity,” th o u g h n o n e o f th ese is ad d ed by m o re th a n 2 per
c e n t o f resp o n d en ts.
T h ese results sh o u ld n o t be ta k en as p ro v id in g a d efin itio n o f in te l
ligence. A list o f tra its is n o t a rigorous scientific d efin itio n , a n d it ce rtain ly
is n 't a unified theory. N onetheless, tw o im p o rta n t p o in ts can be m ade.
F irst, as in prev io u s surveys already cited, th e re is co n sid erab le disag ree
m e n t a b o u t th e b rea d th o f th e d efin itio n , such th a t, for ex am p le, a su b sta n
tial m in o rity o f re sp o n d e n ts disagree th a t m a th e m a tic a l co m p ete n ce an d
creativ ity sh o u ld be in clu d ed . It is these so rts o f d isag reem en ts th a t fuel
d e b a te a b o u t th e n a tu re o f cognitive abilities.
A cc o m p an y in g th e d isa g re em en t a b o u t th e scope o f th e d efin itio n o f
intelligence is very stro n g ag re em e n t at its core. It can reaso n ab ly be c o n
clu d ed th a t w hen different psychologists an d ed u c ato rs use th e te rm “ in te l
ligence” they are b asically referrin g to th e sam e co n cep t, having to d o w ith
th e cap acity to le arn an d w ith m o re co m p lex co g n itiv e task s like ab stra ct
reaso n in g an d p ro b lem solving, a n d th a t they w ould g enerally exclude
57
p u rely m o tiv atio n al an d sensory abilities from th is d efin itio n . T hese sam e
th rea d s ru n th ro u g h b o th th e 1921 an d 1986 sym posia. In m an y ways,
T e rm a n ’s 1921 d efin itio n o f intelligence as a b stra c t th in k in g rem a in s at th e
h e a rt o f c u rre n t th o u g h t a b o u t intelligence.
A p ro p o s o f o u r ea rlier d iscussion o f th e d istin c tio n betw een cognitive
scien tists an d p sy c h o m etrician s, th e survey sam ple was ch o sen to reflect
ex p ertise a b o u t a b ro a d range o f testin g issues, a n d th erefo re in clu d es a
large p ro p o rtio n o f p sy ch o m etrician s. T h ere are, however, m a n y o th e r d is
cip lin es rep resen ted , including, for exam ple, d e v e lo p m e n ta l psychologists
an d cognitive scientists (m em b ers o f th e C ognitive S cience Society), w ho
m ig h t be expected to b rin g very different perspectives to th e q u estio n o f the
n a tu re o f intelligence. It is te stim o n y to th e g enerality o f th e resu lts in
T able 2.3 th a t c o m p a riso n o f responses betw een th e v ario u s p rim a ry an d
se co n d a ry g roups in th e sam p le does n o t reveal a greater n u m b e r o f sta tis
tically significant differences o n an y o f th e elem e n ts o f in telligence th a n
w ould be expected by chance.
T h e results o f th e first th ree q u estio n s on th e n a tu re o f intelligence
p rese n t a m ixed p ic tu re o f th e c u rre n t psychological consensus. T h ere
ap p e ars to be basic ag re em e n t a b o u t th e m o st im p o rta n t elem e n ts o f in te l
ligence, b u t co n sid erab le d issension a b o u t th e details. T h ese d a ta su p p o rt
th e m a jo rity o p in io n th a t intelligence tests have n o t been th e p ro d u c ts o f
unified a n d co m p re h en siv e theo rizin g .
It is n o t tru e, however, th a t th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f in tellig en ce tests has
p ro ceed ed in th e absence o f a n y theory. B esides th e im p licit th e o ry th a t
m u st ac c o m p a n y all test d ev e lo p m e n t, explicit th e o ries o f intelligence,
b o th old an d new, a b o u n d , a n d th e re are m an y tests th a t have been d e
v elo p ed in c o n n e c tio n to p a rtic u la r th e o rie s.24 C ritics like Block a n d
D w o rkin argue th a t th e p iecem eal ap p ro a ch is n o t sufficient, a n d th a t for
p sy ch o m etrics to beco m e a tru e science tests m u st dev elo p h a n d - in - h a n d
w ith a unified theory. In response, m an y p ro p o n e n ts o f testin g p o in t to th e
su b stan tia l degree o f in te rc o rre la tio n betw een p e rfo rm a n c e o n all tests o f
m e n tal ability, regardless o f th e ir th e o re tic al origins. T h e a rg u m e n t is m ad e
th a t, w ith o r w ith o u t a p ro p er theory, all o f these tests seem to be m e asu r
ing th e sam e basic abilities, loosely defined as “ intelligence.”
W hat Intelligence T ests M easure
4. Im p o rta n t elem en ts o f intelligence not m easured.
As a d irect assessm en t o f th e ability o f intelligence tests to m easu re
“ in tellig en ce,” we asked ex p e rts a b o u t th e fit betw een th e tests an d th e ir
ow n d efin itio n o f intelligence. R e sp o n d en ts w ere asked to ch eck each o f th e
58
The IQ Controversy
b ehavioral d escrip to rs th a t they believe to be an im p o rta n t elem e n t o f
intelligence (from th e p reced in g q uestion), b u t th a t th ey d o n o t feel is
ad e q u ately m e asu red by th e m o st c o m m o n ly used intelligence tests.
T h e results o f th is q u e stio n are given in Table 2.4. (N o te th a t th e p e rc e n t
ages given in th is tab le are draw n on ly from th o se w h o had prev io u sly
checked th e d e sc rip to r as an im p o rta n t elem e n t o f intelligence, a n d n o t
from the e n tire sam p le.) R esponse rate w as 87 p ercen t. O n th e w hole,
resp o n d e n ts seem to believe th a t intelligence tests are d o in g a g o o d jo b
m easu rin g intelligence, as th ey w ould define it. O f th e te n b eh av io ral d e
sc rip to rs checked as im p o rta n t elem e n ts by m o re th a n 60 p erc en t o f re
sp o n d e n ts, o nly tw o, “ a d a p ta tio n to o n e ’s e n v iro n m e n t” a n d “ creativ ity ,”
are checked by a m a jo rity as n o t ad e q u ately m easu red , a n d o n ly o n e other,
“ cap acity to ac q u ire know ledge,” is checked by m o re th a n 20 p ercen t.
T h e “a d a p ta tio n to e n v iro n m e n t” resu lt reflects th e c o m m o n criticism
th a t tests a re m u c h b e tte r a t m e a su rin g tra its im p o r ta n t to success in
school th a n general life skills. It is also co n siste n t w ith results fro m earlier
surveys o f e x p e rt o p in io n in w hich th e re w as a co n sen su s a b o u t in telligence
as an ad a p tiv e skill, b u t d isa g re em en t a b o u t th e v ariety o f life c irc u m
stances u n d e r w hich a d a p ta tio n sh o u ld be called in tellig en t. Sim ilarly, th e
“ cre a tiv ity ” finding is n o t su rp risin g in light o f th e p o o r co rre la tio n b e
tw een tests o f intelligence a n d tests o f creativity. T h a t tests o f cre ativ ity are
th em selves p oorly in te rc o rre la te d is evid en ce th a t b eh av io ral scien tists are
u n su re o f w h at creativ ity consists, o r w here it fits in th e co n stellatio n o f
cognitive ab ilities.25
M ore tro u b le so m e for su p p o rte rs o f te stin g is th a t 42 p e rc e n t o f th o se
w ho believe “cap acity to ac q u ire know ledge” is an im p o rta n t e le m e n t o f
intelligence, w hich in clu d es v irtu ally all resp o n d e n ts, d o n o t believe it is
a d e q u ately m e asu red by intelligence tests. As w ith th e p rev io u s q u estio n ,
th e results o f q u estio n 4 are m o re m e an in g fu lly in te rp re te d at a very g en
eral level— th a t ex p e rts believe intelligence tests, w hile far from perfect, are
for th e m o st p a rt m easu rin g w h at th ey sh o u ld be m e a su rin g — th a n a t th e
level o f specific b ehavioral te rm s, w here am b ig u ities a b o u n d .
S om e d istin c tio n s in te rm in o lo g y a re w a rra n te d a t th is p o in t. We will
use th e te rm s “ IQ te st,” “ intelligence te st,” a n d “te st o f g eneral m e n ta l
a b ility ” interchangeably. A s n o te d , IQ , w hich sta n d s fo r in tellig en ce q u o
tie n t, w as first defined by th e G e rm a n psychologist S tern as th e ra tio o f
m e n ta l age (tested age o n an ag e -g ra d ed intellig en ce test) to ch ro n o lo g ical
age. In o rd e r to e lim in a te n o n lin e a ritie s resu ltin g fro m changes in c h ro
nological age (a s ix -y e a r-o ld w hose m e n tal age is re ta rd e d tw o years will
have a m u c h low er IQ th a n a tw e lv e -y e a r-o ld w ith th e sam e degree o f
reta rd a tio n ), IQ is now defined as having a m e an o f 100 in each age group,
an d a sta n d a rd d e v iatio n o f e ith e r 15 o r 16 (d ep en d in g o n th e test). T h u s,
59
TABLE 2.4
Important Elements of Intelligence Not Adequately Measured by Intelligence Tests
Descriptor
Abstract thinking or reasoning
Memory
Adaptation to one’s environment
Mental speed
General knowledge
Creativity
Sensory acuity
Goal-directedness
% of Respondents“ Checking
as Not Adequately Measured
19.9
27.3
42.2
12.7
75.3
12.8
14
12.1
10.7
88.3
57.7
64.1
71.7
“R e s p o n d e n ts in c lu d e o n ly th o se w h o h a d p re v io u sly in d ic a te d th a t d e sc rip to r w as a n im p o rta n t
e le m e n t o f in telligence.
an e ig h t-y e a r-o ld w hose score is o n e sta n d a rd d ev iatio n above th e e ig h ty e a r-o ld m e an o n th e S ta n fo rd -B in e t test has an IQ o f 116. T h is m e th o d o f
ca lc u latin g IQ necessitates p ro p e r sta n d a rd iz a tio n for th e p o p u la tio n being
tested.
In telligence tests m ay be d istin g u ish e d from a p titu d e tests. O n e tr a d i
tio n . w hich we will n o t honor, is to call all g ro u p tests o f general ability
a p titu d e tests, reserving th e te rm s intelligence an d IQ test for in d iv id u ally
a d m in iste re d ex a m in a tio n s. T h e m o re critical d istin c tio n is th a t ap titu d e
tests are usually fairly h o m o g e n eo u s surveys o f specific abilities, su ch as
m a th em atical o r m usical skill. Intelligence tests, on th e o th e r h an d , m e a
sure a w ider variety o f skills necessary for ac ad e m ic success. Intelligence
tests may, eith er th ro u g h design o r su b se q u en t facto r analysis, yield, in
a d d itio n to a m easu re o f general intelligence, subscores c o rresp o n d in g to
m o re specific abilities like verbal co m p re h e n sio n an d n u m e rical reasoning.
Such tests are q u ite sim ila r to m u ltip le a p titu d e b atteries, w hich consist o f
a b ro ad range o f specific a p titu d e tests. In th e d iscussion th a t follows,
intelligence tests are trea ted as tests o f general co gnitive ap titu d e . A d d i
tionally, we will use “ IQ " as a s h o rth a n d for scores on all intelligence an d
general ap titu d e tests.
A g reat deal o f co n fu sio n has been g en erated in th e p o p u la r literatu re
c o n c e rn in g th e difference betw een intelligence o r a p titu d e tests a n d tests o f
sch o lastic ach iev em en t. M uch o f th is co n fu sio n m ay be w a rra n te d by th e
fact th a t scores on intelligence an d ach ie v em e n t tests are highly co rrelated .
N o n etheless, a d istin c tio n m ay be m ade, at least at th e level o f in te n tio n s.
60
The IQ Controversy
A ch ie v em en t tests are in te n d e d to asce rta in th e degree to w hich an in d iv id
ual has m astered a c e rta in body o f know ledge. S uch tests are g en erally
ev a lu ated fo r c o n te n t validity (th e degree to w hich th e q u e stio n s actu ally
c o n ta c t th e body o f know ledge in q u e s tio n — see below). In tellig en ce a n d
a p titu d e tests are designed to m easu re th e e x te n t o f c e rta in ab ilities o r skills
possessed by th e resp o n d e n t th a t are pred ictiv e o f success in fu tu re en d eav
ors, m o st n o ta b ly academ ics. In a d d itio n , intellig en ce tests u su ally m e a
su re a m u c h b ro a d e r ran g e o f b eh a v io rs th a n a c h ie v e m e n t tests, a n d
req u ire know ledge le a rn e d in th e m o re d ista n t p ast.26
A t o n e level, a ll cognitive tests are tests o f ach ie v em e n t. A n ew b o rn
in fa n t can n o m o re solve a block design p ro b lem o n an in tellig en ce test
th a n it can n am e th e state ca p ita ls o n a geograp h y ac h ie v e m e n t test. T h e
necessary skills in bo th cases m u st be le arn ed . T h e im p o rta n t d istin c tio n is
betw een th o se skills a n d abilities th o u g h t to be ac q u ired over a lifetim e,
a n d to be ap p lica b le to a w ide variety o f cognitiv e tasks, a n d specific b o d ies
o f know ledge generally a c q u ire d in a classroom setting. It m ay be p o in te d
o u t, however, th a t th is d istin c tio n often does n o t h o ld in p ractice, as, for
exam ple, in th e u b iq u ito u s v o ca b u la ry q u e stio n s o n in tellig en ce tests. Test
m a k ers m ay resp o n d : H ow b e tte r to te st an ability like verbal c o m p re h e n
sion th a n to ask v o ca b u la ry q u estio n s? T h e a ssu m p tio n is th a t all test
ta k ers will have h ad sufficient ex posure to th e rele v an t e n v iro n m e n ta l stim
uli for differences in ac q u ired v o ca b u la ry to ac cu rately reflect differences in
verbal co m p re h e n sio n . N o n ex p o su re is th o u g h t to in tro d u c e e rro r d is
trib u te d ra n d o m ly across resp o n d e n ts. If these a s su m p tio n s are in c o rrec t,
th e test will be biased (see below).
In fact, a p titu d e a n d ach ie v em e n t tests often look very sim ilar. T h e
g rea ter th e e n v iro n m e n ta l ex p erien ce te st ta k ers are assu m ed to share, th e
m o re a p titu d e tests will look like a c h ie v em e n t tests. T h e m o st n o ta b le
ex am p le o f th is p h e n o m e n o n , a n d o n e th a t has cau sed a g reat deal o f
contro v ersy in rec en t years, is th e S cholastic A p titu d e Test (SAT). D espite
th e te st’s title, th e E d u ca tio n a l T esting Service (ET S) has b ec o m e q u ite
w ary o f calling th e SAT a test o f ac ad e m ic a p titu d e , stressing in stea d “ d e
veloped abilities.” T h is has p u t th e ETS in th e stran g e p o sitio n o f sim u l
ta n e o u s ly a rg u in g th a t its te st m e a su re s d e v e lo p e d a b ilitie s, b u t th a t
co ach in g p ro g ra m s aim ed at raising SAT scores d o n ’t w o rk .27 (See C h a p te r
5 for m o re on th e d eb a te over SAT coaching.) T h e SAT d o es co n sist largely
o f q u e stio n s ta p p in g specific know ledge a b o u t v ocabulary, algebra, an d
geom etry. N onetheless, to th e ex ten t th a t te st ta k ers have been exposed to
sim ila r high school c u rric u la , th e SAT will w ork like an IQ o r a p titu d e test
in th e p o p u la tio n being tested. N o d o u b t th is c o rre la tio n w ould b reak
dow n if th e test p o p u la tio n consisted o f m a n y test ta k ers w ho h ad n o t
c o m p leted tw o years o f high school.
61
A n n e A nastasi has d escribed a “C o n tin u u m o f E x p erien tial Specificity”
am o n g ab ility tests. O n th e highly specific en d o f th e c o n tin u u m are
co u rse -o rie n te d ach ie v em e n t tests tied to p a rtic u la r acad em ic in stru c tio n .
O n th e highly general en d are so -c a lle d “c u ltu r e - fa ir ” tests (see C h a p te r 4)
such as th e R avens Progressive M atrices, consistin g o f ab stra ct se rie s-co m p letio n p ro b lem s involving little o r no language o r o th e r c u ltu rally -sp e cific
know ledge. V erb al-ty p e intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests fall in th e m id d le o f
th is c o n tin u u m .28
R o b e rt G o rd o n h as n o te d th a t m u ch o f th e high c o rre la tio n betw een
a p titu d e o r intelligence an d ach ie v em e n t tests can be ac c o u n te d for by th e
fact th a t m o st te st ta k ers have had eq u iv ale n t ex posu re to relev an t stim uli:
When all individuals have had more or less equal exposure to school instruc
tion, even a highly specific achievement test can function approximately as
an aptitude or intelligence test in measuring individual differences . . . The
greater sensitivity of properly constructed achievement tests than o flQ tests
to instruction is seldom demonstrated by giving them, along with intelligence
tests, to individuals half of whom have had no instructions at all in the
subject at hand. This would be wasteful and expensive, but it would break
down the correlation between the two type of tests.29
A n o th e r reason intelligence a n d ach ie v em e n t tests c o rrela te so well is
th a t intelligence tests are designed th a t way. Intelligence tests are valid ated
to a large degree by th e ir ability to p red ict ac ad e m ic success. Such success
in clu d es grades, te ac h er ev alu atio n s, an d scores o n ach ie v em e n t tests. T h e
logic b eh in d th is strategy is th a t o n e sho u ld req u ire a test designed to
m easu re c e rta in abilities necessary for scholastic ach ie v em e n t to p red ict
scores on scholastic a c h ie v em e n t tests. D ifficulties arise, ac co rd in g to cer
ta in critics, w hen th e high c o rre la tio n betw een intelligence an d ach iev e
m e n t te sts is used to argue th a t in te llig en c e tests m e a su re im p o r ta n t
skills.30 T hese arg u m e n ts hold little w eight, they claim , becau se th e tests
w ere designed to p ro d u ce such co rrelatio n s.
S uch criticism s are n o t w h at drives th e a p titu d e -a c h ie v e m e n t d eb ate,
however. At th e h e a rt o f th is controversy is th e p erc ep tio n th a t an in te l
ligence o r a p titu d e test score is a relatively p e rm a n e n t featu re o f th e in d i
v id u a l. T h e d e s ire to b lu r th e a p titu d e - a c h ie v e m e n t d is tin c tio n by
claim in g th a t intelligence an d a p titu d e tests m easu re n o th in g b u t “ ac
q u ire d kn o w led g e” is an a tte m p t to red u c e th e p o te n tia l stig m atizin g
effects o f th e IQ a n d to em p h asize th e plasticity o f intelligence. (T hese
claim s are also freq u en tly m a d e in th e c o n te x t o f a cu ltu ral bias arg u m en t:
sin ce in te llig en ce te sts are p rim a rily m e a su re s o f e n v iro n m e n t-s p e c ific
know ledge, te st ta k ers w ith m o re expo su re to th e w hite m id d le -c la ss e n
v iro n m e n t for w hich th e tests are w eighted are a t an u n fa ir ad v an tag e.) It is
62
The IQ Controversy
an o u tgrow th o f the e n v iro n m e n ta lism o f th e 1960s an d 70s. As an a tte m p t
to alleviate stig m atiza tio n a n d grief, th is red efin itio n is co m m en d a b le , b u t
a t th e scientific level it is based o n a false d istin ctio n . T h e ac q u ired , a n d
th erefo re m alleable, know ledge it is claim ed intelligence an d ap titu d e tests
are actu ally m easu rin g is c o n tra ste d w ith th e in n a te, an d th erefo re fixed,
skills a n d abilities intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests are su p p o sed to be m e a
suring. In fact, as will be m a d e clear in th e n ext chapter, all skills, abilities,
an d know ledge are d e p e n d e n t on b oth genes an d en v iro n m e n t, an d all are
m o d ifia b le th ro u g h e n v ir o n m e n ta l c h a n g e . T h a t th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l
change necessary to raise IQ significantly is m u c h g rea ter th a n th a t need ed
to raise o n e ’s score on a F ren ch language ach ie v em e n t test is an im p o rta n t
d istin ctio n , an d c a n n o t be glossed over by argu in g th a t all tests m easu re
ac q u ired know ledge.
5. C o m p a re d to success on a chievem ent tests, does success on intelligence
tests a m o n g A m eric a n test ta k ers g enerally d ep e n d less, m ore, or a bout
th e sa m e a m o u n t on acquired know ledge?
T his q u estio n is d elib erately am b ig u o u s, a n d was in c lu d ed becau se arg u
m e n ts a b o u t testin g are co m m o n ly p h rased th is way in th e p o p u la r press.
O ne can m a in ta in th a t “ac q u ired know ledge” is a n y th in g n o t directly co
d ed in to th e genes, in w hich case all behavioral in d ices m easu re it to th e
sam e degree. T h e p o p u la r c o n c ep tio n seem s to be, however, th a t “ ac q u ired
k now ledge” refers n o t to ac q u ired skills a n d abilities, b u t to specific pieces
o f in fo rm a tio n , an d is to be c o n tra ste d w ith “ in n a te ab ilities” ; th e n o tio n
th a t genes a n d e n v iro n m e n t are b oth necessary to th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f all
aspects o f b eh av io r seem s to have been lost in pu b lic d iscussion.
By w hatev er d efin itio n th ey m ay be using, ex p e rts te n d to disagree th a t
intelligence a n d ach ie v em e n t tests are alike in th e ir d ep e n d en c y o n a c
q u ired know ledge. F ifty -n in e p erc en t believe th a t intelligence tests d ep e n d
so m ew h at o r m u c h less o n ac q u ired know ledge, 25 p erc en t say it is a b o u t
th e sam e, an d 7 p erc en t say ac q u ired know ledge is m o re im p o rta n t to
intelligence tests th a n to ac h ie v em e n t tests. E ight p erc en t d id n o t an sw er
th e q u estio n . B ecause o f th e am biguity, these results are o n ly m ean in g fu l as
a response to sim ilarly w orded, a n d equ ally confu sin g , arg u m en ts.
In th e design a n d ev a lu a tio n o f intelligence tests th e re are tw o issues o f
p rim a ry im p o rta n c e ; reliability an d validity. R eliab ility refers to th e co n sis
ten cy o f test scores w hen an in d iv id u al is given th e sam e o r sim ila r item s
u n d e r sim ila r test c o n d itio n s. It is g enerally m e asu red in o n e o f th ree ways:
by a d m in iste rin g th e sam e test on tw o differen t o ccasio n s (te st-re te st, also
k now n as stability), by a d m in iste rin g tw o fo rm s o f th e sam e test o n e ith e r
th e sam e o r different occasions (a lte rn a tiv e form ), o r by co m p a rin g scores
63
on d ifferent ite m s w ith in th e sam e ad m in istra tio n o f a test (sp lit-h a lf, o r
in te rn a l consistency). (C onceptually, reliability an d stab ility are d istin ct,
stab ility referrin g to th e consistency o f test scores over tim e. S tability co
efficients are often calcu lated afte r th e u n reliab ility o f th e te st— even id e n
tical tests given to th e sam e perso n at a single test a d m in is tra tio n will n o t
p ro d u ce identical scores— has been co rrec ted for. In p ractice, tests w ith
high reliability also te n d to be highly stab le.)31 T h e m o st co m m o n n u m e r
ical e stim a te o f reliability is th e reliability coefficient, th e co rrela tio n coeffi
c ie n t b e tw e e n th e te s t s c o re s b e in g c o m p a r e d . F o r i n d i v i d u a l l y a d m in iste re d in tellig en ce tests, reliab ility co e fficien ts rarely are below
0 .8 0 .32
T h e im p o rta n c e o f reliability in th e e v a lu a tio n o f intelligence tests is
o bvious. R egardless o f w h at th e test is m easu rin g , on e w ould have little
co n fidence in a scale w hose e stim a tes varied w idely u n d e r highly sim ilar
te stin g circu m stan ces. Such v aria tio n is usually a ttrib u te d to m e a su re m e n t
error, a n d one o f th e goals in th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f an y scaling in s tru m e n t is
to p ro d u ce as e rro r-fre e m e a su re m e n t as possible.
In terp retin g in tra in d iv id u a l v aria tio n s in te st scores as m e a su re m e n t
e rro r assum es th a t w hatev er is being m e asu red is itself q u ite stable. T h is
a s su m p tio n is p ro b ab ly co rrec t for th e circ u m sta n ce s u n d e r w hich m o st
reliability (o r stability) coefficients are calcu lated , th a t is, w ith in th e sam e,
o r tw o closely spaced, test sessions. W hen the sam e in d iv id u al is tested over
longer p eriods o f tim e, test scores are n o t always very stable. S om e o f th is
in stab ility is a fu n ctio n o f m e a su re m e n t error, b u t gen etic a n d e n v iro n
m e n tal factors p ro d u c in g real changes in intelligence are also believed to be
at w ork. IQ scores are n o rm referenced; IQ is c o m p u te d by c o m p a rin g an
in d iv id u a l’s score to tho se o f o th e rs in th e sam e age group. C hanges in IQ
w ith age th erefo re reflect ch anges in an in d iv id u a l’s ran k in g ; th a t ab so lu te
level o f intelligence increases w ith age has already been co n tro lled for.
P rio r to age three, scores o n tests o f m en tal d e v e lo p m e n t are q u ite u n sta
ble an d are usually ra th e r p o o r p red ic to rs o f a d u lt IQ .33 A t fo u r o r five,
scores begin to beco m e m o re c o n siste n t an d are fo u n d to c o rrela te betw een
0 .50 a n d 0.70 w ith ad u lt IQ .34 T h e highest levels o f stab ility are o b ta in ed
a fter age eight, w hen c o rre la tio n s betw een rep eated in telligence tests given
over q u ite large tim e intervals, co rrec ted for unreliability, are betw een 0.90
an d 1.0.35 Jen sen co m p ares these changing p a tte rn s o f c o rre la tio n s to those
asso ciated w ith changes in height, body w eight, an d physical stren g th , an d
co n clu d es, “ alth o u g h th e IQ is ce rtain ly n o t ‘c o n s ta n t,’ it seem s safe to say
th a t u n d e r n o rm a l en v iro n m e n ta l c o n d itio n s it is at least as stable as d e
v elo p m en tal ch a racteristics o f a strictly physical n atu re .” 36
64
The IQ Controversy
6. H o w stable is th e a ttribute(s) bein g m e a su re d b y intelligence tests,
co m p a re d to a p u re ly p h y sic a l characteristic such as height, when each is
ex p re ssed relative to th e p o p u la tio n m ean?
Intelligence, as m e asu red by intelligence tests, is view ed as less stable
th a n height. S ev en ty -sev en p erc en t o f ex p e rts surveyed say intelligence is
so m e w h at o r m u c h less stable, 11 p erc en t say it is eq u ally stable, a n d o n ly 2
p erc en t in d ic ate it is so m ew h at o r m u c h m o re stable. Ten p erc en t d id n o t
respond.
T h ere is an in te rp re ta tio n a l p ro b lem w ith th is q u estio n , as m a n y re
sp o n d e n ts in d ic ated th a t th ey w ere n o t sure a t w h at age to m ak e th e c o m
p ariso n . T h e p h rase “ relative to th e p o p u la tio n m e a n ” w as in te n d e d to
refer to th e sa m e -a g e p o p u la tio n m e an , as is sta n d a rd p ractice in th e
scoring o f intelligence tests, a n d th u s th e q u e stio n refers to th e e n tire life
span. It is clear, however, th a t m a n y re sp o n d e n ts w ere n o t an sw erin g th e
q u estio n we w ere asking.
O f g rea ter relevance to th e q u e stio n o f w h at in tellig en ce tests m easu re is
th e issue o f validity. A n n e A nastasi, in h e r sta n d a rd te x t P sychological
T esting, identifies th ree basic fo rm s o f validity: c o n te n t, criterio n , a n d
co n stru c t. “C o n te n t v alid atio n involves essentially th e sy stem atic e x a m
in a tio n o f th e test c o n te n t to d e te rm in e w h eth e r it covers a rep resen tativ e
sam ple o f th e b eh a v io r d o m a in to be m e asu red .”37 T h is fo rm o f valid ity is
o f g rea ter relevance to tests o f scholastic ac h ie v e m e n t an d specific a p
titu d e s th a n to general intelligence tests. W hen o n e w ishes to m easu re
m a th e m a tic a l ac h ie v em e n t, for exam ple, th e relev an t b eh av io rs (b o d y o f
know ledge) are clearly defined, an d th e test m ay be ev a lu ated ag ain st th o se
behaviors. In tellig en t beh av io r is n o t so easily defined (as we have seen),
a n d tests o f intelligence m u st be c o m p a re d e ith e r to som e e x tern al criteria
th o u g h t to be related to intelligence, o r to so m e th e o re tic al co n stru c t.
“ C rite rio n -re la te d v alid atio n p ro ced u res in d ic ate th e effectiveness o f a
test in p red ictin g an in d iv id u a l’s beh av io r in specified situ atio n s.” 38 C rite
rio n validity rep rese n ts an im p o rta n t, an d for th o se w h o d isc o u n t existing
th e o ries o f intelligence, th e only, m e th o d o f ev a lu a tin g tests o f g eneral
intelligence. As no ted , IQ is q u ite pred ictiv e o f success in school, h aving an
average valid ity co e ffic ie n t (c o rre la tio n co e ffic ie n t c o rre c te d fo r u n r e
liability) o f betw een 0.50 an d 0.6 0 w ith la ter m easu res o f ac ad e m ic success
like grades a n d ach ie v em e n t test scores.39 T h e value o f th is coefficient
d ecreases at higher levels o f schooling, so th a t IQ is a m u c h b e tte r p re d ic to r
o f success in high school, fo r exam ple, th a n in college o r g rad u a te sch o o l.40
M uch o f th is decrease in co rre la tio n m ay be th e resu lt o f ran g e restric tio n
effects; th e range o f IQ s a m o n g tho se still in school decreases w ith years o f
schooling, th u s reducing c o rre la tio n coefficients. IQ co rrela te s a b o u t 0 .60
w ith highest grad e o f school c o m p le te d .41
65
C h risto p h e r Je n ck s an d his colleagues have review ed ev id en ce lin k in g IQ
to o cc u p atio n al status, as m easu red by the ed u c atio n al re q u ire m e n ts a n d
sa lary levels o f v a rio u s o c c u p a tio n s, a m o n g w h ite n o n fa rm A m eric an
m ales. T h e c o rre la tio n betw een ad o lescen t IQ a n d ad u lt o c c u p atio n al sta
tu s is q u ite high, averaging betw een 0.50 an d 0 .6 0 .42 It has been argued,
however, th a t IQ has its effects on o cc u p atio n al statu s indirectly, via ed u c a
tio n a l a tta in m e n t;43 th a t is, tho se w ith higher IQs get b e tte r jo b s p rim arily
b ecause these jo b s req u ire ap p lic a n ts to have c o m p leted m o re years o f
schooling. In c o n tra st, m o st o f the c o rre la tio n betw een IQ an d in co m e,
w hich is slightly g rea ter th a n 0.30, is in d e p e n d e n t o f th e effects o f a m o u n t
o f schooling c o m p le te d .44 Finally, a rec en t review o f p red ictiv e validity o f
v ario u s m easu res o f jo b p e rfo rm a n c e by Jo h n an d R o n d a H u n te r rep o rts
th a t th e c o rre la tio n betw een tests o f general cognitive ab ility a n d jo b c o m
p eten ce varies w ith jo b re q u ire m e n ts, b u t is in all cases su b sta n tia l (greater
th a n 0.30). T h e m e a n pred ictiv e validity (co rre latio n betw een test scores
a n d jo b co m p ete n ce ) across all jo b categories stu d ied is betw een 0.50 an d
0 .6 0 , w ith validity bein g slightly higher for ease o f jo b tra in in g th a n fo r jo b
p roficiency as m e asu red by supervisors’ ratings.45
In lin e w ith o u r ea rlier d iscussion, we m ay say th a t intelligence, as m e a
su red by intelligence tests, consists o f som e set o f skills th a t are very im p o r
ta n t for success in school an d m o d erately im p o rta n t for success in th e jo b
m a rk e t. T h is assum es, o f course, th a t intelligence tests are m e asu rin g skills,
a n d n o t m erely class o r racial variables, i.e., th a t th e tests are n o t biased.
T h e su b stan tia l c o rre la tio n s betw een ch ild h o o d IQ a n d ev en tu al o c c u p a
tio n a l sta tu s a n d in c o m e m ight lead o n e to co n c lu d e th a t w h atev er in te l
ligence tests are m e asu rin g , it is im p o r ta n t for success in o u r society.
C o rre la tio n is n o t necessarily ca u sa tio n , however, an d th e social m o b ility
h y p o th esis (the idea th a t success is largely d e te rm in e d by o n e ’s abilities,
in c lu d in g intelligence as m easu red by IQ tests) has been ch allen g ed o n th e
g ro u n d th a t th e co rre la tio n betw een IQ a n d vario u s m easu res o f success is
sp u rious.
T h o se w ho disagree w ith the social m o b ility hy p o th esis generally c o n
cede th a t intelligence tests are good p red ic to rs o f success in school. T h ey
arg u e th a t th is in d icates only th a t these tests m easu re a very n arro w c o n
ce p tio n o f intelligence, su b stan tia lly related to th e so rts o f verbal skills
v alu able in school. In th e real w orld, it is said, th e im p o rta n c e o f these skills
is d w arfed by such a ttrib u te s as persistence, a n d th e ab ility to get alo n g w ith
o th e r people. T h is arg u m e n t has often been m a d e in resp o n se to H e rrn s te in ’s co n c lu sio n th a t SES is p a rtly heritable. T h e social m o b ility h y p o th
esis fo rm s an essential p a rt o f H e rrn s te in ’s syllogism (see C h a p te r 4).
C h risto p h e r Je n ck s has also argued th a t in a d d itio n to in te rm e d ia ry
elfects o f ed u c atio n al a tta in m e n t o n th e IQ -o c c u p a tio n a l statu s c o rre la
tio n . m u c h o f th is c o rre la tio n can be ex p lain ed by th e effects o f p are n ts’
66
The IQ Controversy
so c io eco n o m ic sta tu s (SES). C h ild re n ’s IQs co rrela te a b o u t 0 .30 w ith p a r
e n ts’ SES, as m easu red by a n u m b e r o f variables, in c lu d in g q u ality o f h o m e
e n v iro n m e n t, incom e, a n d o cc u p atio n al sta tu s.46 T h e c o rre la tio n betw een
fathers’ an d sons’ o cc u p atio n al statu s is betw een 0 .40 a n d 0 .5 0 .47 It is th u s
possible th a t m u ch o f th e c o rre la tio n betw een IQ an d ev en tu al o c c u p a
tio n a l statu s an d in c o m e is m erely a b y p ro d u c t o f in h e rited w ealth. (We
will re tu rn in C h a p te r 4 to th e q u e stio n o f w hy th o se w ith higher SES have
higher IQs.) In fact, Je n ck s et al. in th e ir analysis o f th e d e te rm in a n ts o f
success in A m erica reveal th a t th e v aria tio n (stan d a rd d ev iatio n ) in o c
cu p a tio n a l sta tu s am o n g m en w ith iden tical test scores is a b o u t 88 p erc en t
o f th e v aria tio n a m o n g all m en. “T h is suggests th a t th e U n ite d States
c a n n o t be co n sid ered a ‘m erito cracy ,’ at least if ‘m e rit’ is m e asu red by
g eneral cognitive skills.”48 Je n ck s also cites d a ta in d ic a tin g th a t th e in te r
g en e ratio n a l tran sm issio n o f SES is little affected by IQ .49
Such evidence n o tw ith stan d in g , th e co rre la tio n b etw een SES a n d IQ
m ight involve causal effects ru n n in g in b o th d irectio n s. J u s t as th e q u ality
o f e n v iro n m e n t prov id ed by p a re n ta l SES will in flu en ce IQ , so m ig h t o n e ’s
intelligence (as m e asu red by th e tests) d e te rm in e o n e ’s ow n SES; social
m o b ility m ay be in p a rt a fu n c tio n o f intelligence. E v id en ce for th is su p
p o sitio n can be fo u n d in th e fact th a t th e c o rre la tio n betw een ad o lesc en t
IQ a n d la ter in c o m e increases w ith age. M oreover, Je ro m e W aller, in a 1971
stu d y o f 131 fathers a n d 170 o f th e ir sons, fo u n d a c o rre la tio n o f a b o u t 0.29
betw een fa th e r-so n IQ differences an d fa th e r-s o n SES differences; sons
w ith higher IQ s th a n th e ir fathers w ere m o re likely to have h ig h er SES,
w hile sons w ith low er IQs generally m oved dow n th e so c io eco n o m ic lad
der.50
7. In y o u r opinion, to what degree is th e average A m e r ic a n ’s socio
econom ic sta tu s (S E S ) d e te rm in e d b y h is or her IQ ?
T h e m a jo rity o f re sp o n d e n ts s u p p o rt th e idea th a t th e U n ite d S tates is
so m ew h at o f an intellectu al m eritocracy. Sixty p erc en t feel th a t IQ is an
im p o rta n t, b u t n o t th e m o st im p o rta n t, d e te rm in a n t o f SES. T w en ty -o n e
p erc en t believe IQ plays on ly a sm all role in d e te rm in in g SES, a n d 3
p e rc e n t feel it is n o t at all im p o rta n t. O nly 2 p e rc e n t rate IQ as th e m o st
im p o rta n t d e te rm in a n t o f SES. T h ere w ere 14 p e rc e n t n o n re sp o n d e n ts.
“ T h e c o n s tru c t validity o f a test is th e e x te n t to w hich th e test m ay be
said to m easu re a th e o re tic al c o n stru c t o r tra it.”51 Block a n d D w o rk in ’s
criticism o f o p era tio n alism in intelligence testin g is based o n th is co n cep t.
W ith o u t an idea o f w h at intelligence is, th e re is n o way o f k n ow ing if an
in telligence test is w h at it claim s to be. T h ere are, o f co u rse, m a n y th e o ries
o f intelligence, an d tests have been designed w ith th e c o n stru c ts o f these
67
th eo ries in m in d , b u t th e re still is n o generally accep ted th e o re tic al a c c o u n t
o f intelligence.
O u r ea rlier q u estio n a b o u t im p o rta n t elem e n ts o f in tellig en ce n o t ad e
q u ately m e asu red by intelligence tests is in fact a cru d e m easu re o f o p in io n
a b o u t c o n stru c t validity; we a tte m p te d to assess th e degree to w hich ex p erts
believe these tests m easu re c e rta in th e o re tic al co n stru c ts, such as “ th e
cap acity to acq u ire know ledge.” A m o re c o m m o n source o f c o n stru c t val
id a tio n for intelligence tests is c o rre la tio n w ith existin g tests; if scores on
tw o tests are highly c o rrela te d , th e n th e tests are assu m ed to be m easu rin g
th e sam e co n stru c ts. T h e success o f th is strategy is lim ited by th e co n s tru c t
v alidity o f existing tests. U n fo rtu n a tely , m a n y o f these tests have n ot th e m
selves been subject to c o n s tru c t v alid atio n . For ex am p le, th e S tan fo rd rev i
sio n s o f the B in e t-S im o n scales have been a m o n g th e m o st w idely used o f
such sta n d ard s. T h e B in e t-S im o n test m ay have h ad som e c o n s tru c t v alid
ity, as T erm an a n d o th e rs n o te d in ex p lain in g its success, b u t th ese w ere
p o s t-h o c analyses. T h e te st w as ad o p te d because o f its c rite rio n validity.
C o rre la tio n w ith ex isting tests is d o n e as a fo rm o f c o n s tru c t v alid atio n ; if
scores o n tw o tests are highly c o rrela te d , th e n th e tests are assu m ed to be
m e asu rin g th e sam e co n stru c ts. T h e success o f th is strategy is lim ited by
th e c o n stru c t validity o f existing tests.
M uch c o n stru c t v alid atio n o f intelligence tests, an d , in fact, m u c h in te l
ligence theory, c o m es from a n o th e r so u rce, sta tistic a l an aly ses o f te st
scores. T h e in te rp re ta tio n o f these analyses has been o n e o f th e m o st ho tly
d eb ated top ics in th e intelligence literatu re . A t th e ce n te r o f th is d eb a te are
arg u m e n ts o ver th e existence an d sta tu s o f a general m e n ta l ability. P sy ch o
m e tricia n s disagree a b o u t th e e x te n t to w hich scores on in telligence an d
g eneral a p titu d e tests reflect p rim a rily a single a p titu d e , o r a larger n u m b e r
o f in d e p e n d e n t cog nitive abilities.
T hose w ho argue for th e existence o f a general m e n tal ab ility rely heavily
on the fact th a t v irtu ally all tests o f intelligence an d m e n tal a p titu d e are
positively c o rre la te d .52 T h is p h e n o m e n o n w as first n o te d in 1904, th e year
before th e p u b lic a tio n o f th e B in e t-S im o n scale, by E nglish psychologist
C h arles S p e a rm a n .53 S p e a rm a n , a disciple o f G a lto n ’s, h ad been using th e
new ly in v e n ted c o rre la tio n a l te c h n iq u e s to investig ate th e rela tio n sh ip b e
tw een vario u s m easu res o f intelligence: te ac h er a n d p eer ratings, school
grades, a n d sensory an d m e m o ry test scores. U n lik e C lark W issler, S pear
m a n was im p ressed by th e su b stan tia l in te rc o rre la tio n betw een th e v ario u s
m easu res (S p e arm an n o te d th a t W issler’s c o rre la tio n s w ere to o low becau se
he h ad failed to co rrec t for th e u n reliab ility o f his m easures), a n d p a r
tic u la rly by th e very high p o sitiv e c o rre la tio n s b etw een g rad es o f p re
p a ra to ry school stu d e n ts in each o f six subjects, ran g in g fro m E nglish an d
m a th e m a tic s to m usic. S tu d en ts w ho d id well in o n e su b ject w ere likely to
68
The IQ Controversy
d o well in all o f th e m . S p e a rm a n hyp o th esized th a t th is p a tte rn co u ld be
ex p la in e d by a single u n d e rly in g factor, w hich h e called g en eral in te l
ligence, o r g.
W ith the ad v e n t o f th e first w orkable intellig en ce tests, S p e a rm a n was
prov id ed w ith an even g rea ter d a ta base, a n d his w ork o n th e stru c tu re o f
intelligence c o n tin u e d apace. In o rd e r to m o re precisely define th e m a n n e r
in w hich a p a tte rn o f c o rre la tio n s betw een tests reflected c o m m o n u n d erly
ing en titie s like g, S p earm a n in v e n ted a te c h n iq u e k n o w n as facto r an a ly
sis, w h ic h h a s b e c o m e th e p r im a ry to o l o f c o n s tr u c t v a lid a tio n in
p sych o m etrics. F acto r analysis is a m e th o d by w hich th e set o f c o rre la tio n s
betw een a large n u m b e r o f en titie s (in th is case scores o n d ifferen t tests o r
subtests) m ay be redescrib ed in te rm s o f a sm aller n u m b e r o f factors. T h e
an alysis p ro d u ce s a set o f fac to r “ loadings” fo r each e n tity th a t reflect th e
d egree to w hich th e en tity in q u e stio n m e asu res each factor. T h u s, for
ex am p le, a set o f c o rre la tio n s betw een tw en ty a p titu d e tests m ay be d e
scribed by fo u r u n d erly in g factors. E ach test m e asu res th e fo u r facto rs to
varying degrees, as in d ic ated by th e ir fa c to r loadings.
S p e a rm a n fo u n d , as he h ad p red icted , th a t m o st c o rre la tio n s betw een
test scores he an aly zed co u ld be d escribed in te rm s o f o n e u n d erly in g facto r
o n w hich all o f th e tests h ad fairly high loadings, i.e. g. Tests th a t h a d a large
n u m b e r o f high c o rre la tio n s w ith o th e r tests w ere said to be m o re “g lo a d e d ” th a n tho se w ith a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f low er co rrela tio n s. F ro m th e
results o f m a n y such facto r analyses S p e a rm a n d ev elo p ed his tw o -fa c to r
th e o ry o f in tellig en ce.54 A ny given cognitive ac tiv ity (o r p e rfo rm a n c e on
an y test o f m e n tal ability) co u ld be a c c o u n te d for by g, th e g en eral in te l
ligence fac to r c o m m o n to all such activities (o r tests), a n d by a special (o r
g ro u p ) factor, s, reflecting abilities u n iq u e to th a t activ ity (o r test).
S p e a rm a n s th e o ry w as a d o p te d by m a n y o f th e early m e n ta l testers as an
e x p la n a tio n o f th e ir test results; as a m easu re o f g, in tellig en ce test scores
to o k on even g rea ter significance. O n ce tests w ere firm ly estab lish ed , th e
statistical analysis o f intelligence tests scores b ecam e o n e o f th e p rim a ry
m e an s by w hich th e o ries o f intelligence w ere d ev elo p ed a n d v alidated.
T h re e im p o rta n t p o in ts a b o u t fac to r analysis sh o u ld be n o ted . First,
fac to r analysis is a purely statistical te c h n iq u e th a t d o es n o th in g m o re th a n
redescribe a set o f co rrela tio n s. F actors are descrip tiv e categories, or, a t
b est, h y p o th e tic al co n stru c ts, a n d sh o u ld n o t be th o u g h t o f as a c tu a l u n d e r
lying entities. Second, fac to r analysis p ro d u c e s a set o f facto rs th a t re
d escribe th e d a ta — it does n o t in te rp re t th ese factors. In te rp re ta tio n is left
to th o se w ho ex a m in e th e results o f th e analysis, a n d is u su ally a c c o m
p lished by n o tin g th e sim ilarities betw een th o se en titie s th a t lo ad highly on
a given factor. Finally, th e re are an infinite n u m b e r o f fac to r an a ly tic so lu
tio n s for an y set o f c o rre la tio n s (w hich is n o t to say th a t th ese so lu tio n s are
69
n o t u n iq u e to th e set o f c o rrela tio n s being analyzed). T h e so lu tio n a rriv ed
at d ep e n d s on th e value o f c e rta in p a ra m e te rs specified by th e an aly st, w ho
has c e rta in goals in m in d . S p e a rm a n p erfo rm ed his analyses so th a t each
te st w ould have th e highest possible loading on o n e factor. It sh o u ld be
u n d ersto o d , however, th a t S p e a rm a n ’s analyses w ould n o t have p ro d u ce d
th e results they d id if th e original set o f c o rre la tio n s h ad n o t allow ed it. If
few o f th e tests co rrela te d positively, o r if th e re w ere m a n y negative c o rre la
tio n s, th e analyses w ould n o t have been able to p ro d u ce o n e facto r on
w hich m o st tests lo ad ed highly.
N evertheless, th e p receding caveats m ak e it clear th a t o n e m ay arriv e a t a
large an d varied n u m b e r o f reaso n ab le so lu tio n s a n d in te rp re ta tio n s from
th e sam e set o f test score co rrela tio n s. F a c to r-a n a ly sis th e o rists te n d to fall
in o n e o f tw o cam ps; tho se w ho h y pothesize a p rim a ry general intelligence
facto r a n d su b sid iary factors o f special abilities, an d th o se w h o see in te l
ligence as co m p o sed en tirely o f sep arate faculties.
L. L. T h u rs to n e w as th e first to p o in t o u t th a t th e sam e set o f test scores
co u ld be facto r an aly zed to p ro d u ce , in stead o f o n e general factor, a sm all
n u m b e r o f factors. T h u rs to n e called these factors p rim a ry m e n tal abilities,
each o f w hich has a b o u t equal facto r loadings across all tests. H e also n o ted
th a t th e in te rp re ta tio n given to g d ep e n d s largely o n th e p a rtic u la r tests
w hose scores are fac to r analyzed. In 1935, T h u rs to n e p u b lish ed T h e Vec
tors o f M in d , in w hich he h ypothesized th a t intellig en ce m ig h t co n sist o f a
relatively sm all n u m b e r o f in d e p e n d e n t faculties c o rre sp o n d in g to different
co g nitive d o m a in s, each o f w hich c o n trib u te s to a g reater o r lesser degree to
in tellectu al fu n ctio n in g in any p a rtic u la r situ atio n . Based on his ow n re
search a n d test d ev e lo p m e n t, T h u rs to n e w as able to id en tify eight p rim a ry
m e n tal abilities: verbal ability, in d u c tiv e o r general reaso n in g , n u m erical
ability, ro te m em ory, p ercep tu al speed, w ord fluency, sp atial ability, an d
d ed u c tiv e reasoning. All b u t th e last o f th ese have been fre q u en tly c o rro b o
rated by th e w ork o f o th e r m u lti-fa c to r th e o rists.55 It is in terestin g th a t,
d esp ite his b elief th a t intelligence sho u ld n o t be d escrib ed in te rm s o f a
general factor, T h u rs to n e later observed th a t his sm all n u m b e r o f p rim a ry
factors w ere them selv es in te rc o rre la te d , leading h im to p o stu late a "sec
o n d - o rd e r g.” 56
P erhaps th e m o st ex trem e fo rm o f th e m u lti-fa c to r view is rep resen ted
by th e stru c tu re -o f-in te lle c t m odel o f J. P. G u ilfo rd .57 G u ilfo rd has p o s tu
lated som e 120 in te lle ctu al factors based on a th e o re tic al sch em e in w hich
an intellectu al activity m ay be described in te rm s o f o n e o f five ty p es o f
m e n tal o p e ra tio n , four types o f c o n te n t, a n d six types o f p ro d u ct. T h e
m o del d oes n o t deal w ith an y general abilities. G u ilfo rd a n d his associates
have developed tests th a t a tte m p t to iden tify th e facto rs h y p o th esized by
th e m odel. A fter tw enty years o f research a n d test d ev e lo p m e n t, n in e ty -
70
The IQ Controversy
eight factors h ad been id e n tified .58 T h a t m o st o f th ese facto rs are c o rrela te d
has been a m a jo r criticism o f G u ilfo rd ’s a n ti- g p o sitio n .59 N o n eth eless,
G u ilfo rd ’s w ork is a good ex am p le o f how intellig en ce th e o ry a n d m e asu re
m e n t m ay progress together.
G en eral intelligence th e o rists d o n o t d isregard th e idea o f se p arate m e n
tal abilities, b u t argue th a t tests o f these abilities are so highly c o rrela te d
th a t th e re m u st be so m e m o re general fac to r in flu en cin g p e rfo rm a n c e on
all o f th em . H ierarch ical o rg an iz atio n is c o m m o n to m a n y th eo ries p o s
tu la tin g a general intelligence factor.60 P h ilip V ern o n , fo r ex am p le, places g
a t th e to p o f th e hierarchy. T h e “ m a jo r g ro u p facto rs,” v e rb a l-e d u c a tio n a l
an d sp a tia l-m e c h a n ic a l, c o n stitu te th e second echelon. U n d e r th ese are
ce rta in m in o r g ro u p fac to rs,” an d finally specific facto rs u n iq u e to each
test. T he m o re an y given test ta p s in to abilities in th e u p p e r levels o f th e
hierarchy, th e m o re scores from th e test will c o rre la te w ith th o se fro m o th e r
in telligence a n d a p titu d e tests. Jo h n C a rro ll has n o te d th a t, because o f th e
so m ew h at a rb itra ry n a tu re o f fa c to r-a n a ly tic so lu tio n s, th e m o d els o f Ver
n o n a n d T h u rs to n e are in te rc o n v e rtib le .61
A n o th e r p o p u la r an a ly tic so lu tio n is R a y m o n d C a tte ll’s d istin c tio n b e
tw een fluid a n d crystallized general intelligence.62 F lu id g involves n o n v er
bal, c u ltu re -fre e skills th o u g h t to be g reatly d e p e n d e n t on physiological
stru ctu re s. C rystallized g refers to ac q u ired skills an d know ledge th a t d e
p en d on ed u c atio n al an d c u ltu ra l factors, a n d on fluid intelligence. F lu id
in telligence increases u n til adolescence, afte r w hich it declines, as p h y s
io lo g ic a l s tr u c t u r e s d e t e r io r a te . C r y s ta lliz e d in te llig e n c e in c re a s e s
th ro u g h o u t life u n til severe d e te rio ra tio n o f physiological stru c tu re s (fluid
intelligence) late in life causes ac q u ired know ledge to d ecrease as well. IQ
tests like th e S ta n fo rd -B in e t an d th e W echsler tests m e asu re b o th fluid a n d
crystallized intelligence. A ch ie v em en t tests are b e tte r m easu res o f cry s
tallized th a n fluid intelligence, w hile C attell has dev elo p ed n o n v erb a l tests
th a t are alm o st en tirely m e asu res o f fluid intelligence.
If we are to believe general intelligence th eorists, g is th e m o st im p o rta n t
asp ect o f intelligence. B ut w h at is g? As a m a tte r o f fact, g is a label given to
p a rt o f th e o u tp u t o f a statistical analysis describ in g a high degree o f in te r
co rrela tio n betw een tests o f m e n tal ability. A n y th in g else th a t m ay be said
a b o u t g is an in te rp re ta tio n based o n an ex a m in a tio n o f th o se tests th a t
load highly on th e “general in tellig en ce” factor. We m ay h yp o th esize th a t
tests th a t load highly on g are m e asu rin g so m e u n d erly in g g eneral ability,
b u t we on ly kn o w th a t such tests co rrela te highly w ith m a n y o th e r tests.
Je n sen has looked closely a t tho se tests th a t load highly on g. T hese
in c lu d e tests o f verbal sim ilarities an d differences, verbal analogies, series
c o m p letio n , figure analogies, an d a rith m e tic reasoning. Tests th a t load
p o o rly o n g in c lu d e speed o f sim ple a d d itio n , ro te m e m o ry tasks, a n d
71
sim p le reactio n tim e. Je n sen reaches tw o co n c lu sio n s from his e x a m in a
tion: first, "g is not related to th e specific c o n te n ts o f item s o r to th e ir
surface ch aracteristics.”63 In o th e r w ords, w hatev er is cau sin g tests to c o rre
late highly is a g eneral characteristic. S econd, “g seem s to be involved in
item s th a t req u ire m en tal m a n ip u la tio n o f im ages, sym bols, w ords, n u m
bers. o r concepts. Tests th a t m erely call for recall o r re p ro d u c tio n o f p re
vio u s le a rn in g o r highly p rac tice d skills are p o o r m e asu res o f g.”64 In
a d d itio n , Jen sen n otes th a t th e higher a test loads on g, th e b etter it c o rre
lates w ith subjective im pressions o f intelligence. For these reasons, Jen sen
a n d o th e rs have h ypothesized th a t tests o f m e n tal ab ility th a t co rrela te well
w ith m a n y o th e r tests do so because they req u ire a great deal o f general
in tellectu al ability.
M u lti-fa c to r th e o rists argue th a t th e c o rre la tio n betw een tests o f d if
feren t a p titu d e s is th e result o f an in d e p e n d e n t, b u t co ex isten t, set o f ab il
ities. T hey p o in t o u t th a t it is possible to c o n s tru c t tests th a t m easu re these
specific abilities, a n d th a t th e co rrela tio n betw een th ese tests is far from
perfect. T h e existence o f id io t savants (m en tal re ta rd a te s possessing e x tra
o rd in a ry abilities in o n e specific area), an d , m o re generally, th e u n iq u e
profile o f intellectu al abilities displayed by all persons, arg u e for th e exis
ten ce o f in d e p e n d e n t a ttrib u te s .65
8. Is intelligence, as m ea su red b y intelligence tests, b etter d escribed in
te rm s o f a p rim a ry g eneral intelligence fa c to r a n d su b sid ia ry group o f
special a b ility fa ctors, or entirely in te rm s o f separate fa c u ltie s?
D espite the " a rb itra rin e ss” o f facto r an aly tic solutio n s, m o st resp o n d e n ts
hold definite o p in io n s o n how to m o st m ean in g fu lly to describe in te l
ligence test results. F ifty -e ig h t p erc en t favor som e fo rm o f a general in te l
ligence so lu tio n , w hile 13 p erc en t feel se p arate faculties are a su p e rio r
d escrip tio n . O nly 16 p erc en t th in k th e d a ta are sufficiently am b ig u o u s as
n o t to favor e ith e r so lu tio n . N o n re sp o n se rate w as 13 p ercen t.
O p in io n s a b o u t g tell us w h at m o st ex p erts believe a b o u t th e stru c tu re o f
intelligence, at least as m easu red by intelligence tests. T h e re is also a m o re
practical co n seq u en ce. T h e revised ed itio n o f th e W echsler In telligence
Scale for C h ild re n (W IS C -R ) an d th e S ta n fo rd -B in e t are th e tw o m o st
w idely used in d iv id u a lly -a d m in is te re d intelligence tests. T h e ir m o st im
p o rta n t use is in ed u c a tio n p la n n in g for sp e c ia l-n e e d s stu d en ts. Because
th ese tests yield se p arate subscores for such skills as verbal a n d arith m e tic
reasoning, tra in e d test a d m in istra to rs can diagnose specific deficits an d
help plan a p p ro p ria te re m e d ia tio n program s. T hese tests also yield an
o m n ib u s IQ. T h a t th e subscales o f these tests are su b stan tia lly in te rc o rre
lated an d th a t th e tests are highly g -lo a d e d m ean s, a t least for believers in g.
72
The IQ Controversy
th a t th e sin g le-sco re IQ is also a highly m e an in g fu l m easu re, as are global
scores on o th e r general a p titu d e batteries.
Issues o f th e stru c tu re o f intelligence aside, ex a m in a tio n o f m o d e rn
in telligence tests in d icates th a t these tests are m easu rin g so m e set o f in te l
lectual skills. T h e W IS C -R , for exam ple, is extrem ely reliable, has good
c o n c u rre n t a n d pred ictiv e validity, loads highly on g, a n d has been well
sta n d a rd iz e d for A m erican c h ild re n .66 T h e W IS C -R co n sists o f th e follow
ing subtests: general in fo rm a tio n , w ord sim ilarities, a rith m etic, v o ca b u l
ary, p ro b lem co m p re h e n sio n , digit span, p ic tu re c o m p letio n , block design,
o b ject assem bly, coding, an d m azes. It w ould be difficult to arg u e th a t
W IS C -R scores do not reflect in tellectu al abilities.
Two fu rth e r q u e stio n s a b o u t intelligence tests seem relev an t. F irst, to
w h at ex ten t d o th ese tests m e asu re o th e r th a n in te lle ctu al factors? Second,
w h at im p o rta n t factors are n o t m e asu red by intellig en ce tests? In a sense,
th ese q u e stio n s are ju s t a n o th e r way o f asking how in telligence test scores
are related to “ intelligence,” b u t in a fo rm th a t m ay be m o re answ erable.
Tests th a t m easu re to an y significant e x te n t n o n in te lle c tu a l facto rs asso
c iated w ith SES, class, o r c u ltu re are biased. T h e n a tu re a n d e x te n t o f bias
in intelligence tests will be discussed in C h a p te r 4. F or now we m ay ask
w h eth e r intelligence tests m easu re any personality, m o tiv a tio n a l, o r e m o
tio n a l factors n o t generally th o u g h t to be p a rt o f intelligence. T h e an sw er
d ep en d s, o f course, o n o n e ’s d efin itio n o f intelligence, b u t few w ould arg u e
th a t intelligence tests sh o u ld be m easu rin g such th in g s as w illingness to
co m p ly w ith in stru c tio n s o r e m o tio n a l lability (th o u g h th ese a ttrib u te s
m ight be q u ite pred ictiv e o f ac ad e m ic success). T h a t in telligence tests are
in fluenced by such factors is generally agreed u p o n by th o se w h o stu d y
te stin g .67 T h e degree o f th is influence is u n c e rta in . T h e ev id en ce is q u ite
clear, however, th a t th e perso n al ch a racteristics o f th e exam iner, th e ra p
p o rt established betw een th e e x a m in e r an d th e su b ject, th e su b je ct’s ph y s
ical a n d e m o tio n a l state, a n d te st an x iety ca n all in flu en ce in tellig en ce test
scores. F or th is reason, p sy c h o m etric tex ts a n d test m a n u a ls c o n ta in n u
m e ro u s w arn in g s a n d suggestions fo r cre atin g as “ o b jectiv e” a te stin g e n
v ir o n m e n t as p o ssib le, a n d fo r ta k in g e x tr a - in te lle c tu a l fa c to rs in to
a c c o u n t w hen in te rp re tin g te st results. (It also ex p lain s w hy th o se w ho
a d m in iste r intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests, p a rtic u la rly to in d iv id u als, m u st
be well tra in e d .) W hile it m ay be im p o ssib le to d e te rm in e th e p recise
in fluence o f these factors in a n y given case, th o se w ho fail to heed th e
w arn in g s will ce rtain ly o b ta in less co m p re h en sib le, a n d less accu rate, test
scores.
Block an d D w o rk in argue th a t intelligence tests also m easu re su ch per
so n ality a n d m o tiv a tio n a l factors as persisten ce an d atten tiv en ess. T h ese
tra its a re p resu m a b ly little influenced by an e x a m in e r’s a tte m p ts to m ak e
73
th e te stin g situ a tio n m o re a m e n a b le to m ean in g fu l m e asu rem en t. T h e
im p o rta n c e o f p ersistence an d atten tiv en e ss violates th e n o tio n o f “ in te l
ligence” testing, ac co rd in g to Block an d D w orkin, becau se such traits are
c le a rly n o n in te lle c tu a l. B ut th e s e a u th o r s also in d ic a te th a t D a v id
W echsler, dev elo p er o f th e W1SC an d WAIS, believed th a t a ttrib u te s like
p ersisten ce a n d atten tiv en e ss are p a r t o f general intelligence, d efining in te l
ligence as a d a p tiv e behavior. T h u s we re tu rn to th e p ro b lem en c o u n te re d
in th e 1921 a n d 1986 sy m p o sia o f how bro ad ly such a d a p tiv e b eh av io r is to
be defined.
9. T h e im p o rta n ce o f p erso n a l characteristics to intelligence test
perform ance.
R e sp o n d e n ts w ere asked to rate each o f six perso n al ch aracteristics for
th e ir im p o r ta n c e to p e r f o rm a n c e o n in te llig e n c e te sts. T h ese c h a r a c
teristics are a c h ie v em e n t m o tiv a tio n , anxiety, atten tiv en e ss, e m o tio n a l la
bility, persistence, an d physical h ealth . R atin g s w ere m a d e o n a 4 - p o in t
scale, w here 1 w as “ O f little im p o rta n c e ,” 2 w as “ S o m ew h at im p o r ta n t,” 3
was “ M o d erately im p o r ta n t,” a n d 4 was “ Very im p o rta n t.”
T h e results o f q u e stio n 8 are show n in Table 2.5. All ch aracteristics are
seen as a t least so m e w h at im p o rta n t to test p e rfo rm a n c e , th o u g h o nly
atten tiv en e ss is m o re th a n m o d erately im p o rta n t. N o n eth eless, ex p e rt re
sp o n d e n ts believe th a t intelligence test scores can be su b stan tia lly affected
by tra its tra d itio n a lly co n sid ered n o n in te lle ctu al. T h e case is m o st clearly
TABLE 2.5
Importance of Personal Characteristics to Intelligence Test Performance
Characteristic
Anxiety
Attentivenesss
Emotional lability
Persistence
Physical health
Mean Importance
Rating*
2.87
(.964)»
2.68
(.901)
3.39
(.744)
2.52
(.938)
2.96
(.872)
2.34
(.892)
*1 = "Of little importance,” 2 = "Somewhat important,” 3 = "Moderately important,” and
4 = "Very important."’ b. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
74
The IQ Controversy
m a d e for a c h ie v em e n t m o tiv atio n . W hile on ly 19 p e rc e n t o f re sp o n d e n ts
b elieve ach ie v em e n t m o tiv a tio n is an im p o rta n t e le m e n t o f in tellig en ce
(Table 2.3), th is tra it receives a m ean ratin g o f 2.87 o n th e 4 - p o in t scale o f
im p o rta n c e to te st p erfo rm an ce .
“ A psychological test is essentially an objectiv e a n d sta n d a rd iz e d m e a
sure o f a sam p le o f behavior.”68 A n intelligence test is a m easu re o f a sam p le
o f in te llig e n t b eh av io r. T h e re p re s e n ta tiv e n e s s o f th a t sa m p le is th e
p ro v in ce o f te st v alid atio n , w ith all its a tte n d a n t am b ig u ities. In th is so
ciety, intelligence tests sam p le b eh av io r th a t is p red ictiv e o f (a n d p re su m
ably im p o rta n t to) success in o u r school system s a n d in th e jo b m a rk e t.
O th e r skills a n d a ttrib u te s, w hich m ay be eq u ally im p o rta n t to success, are
little m easu red . (See Je n ck s et al. ’s 1972 b o o k In e q u a lity fo r an ex cellen t
d iscussion o f th e im p o rta n c e o f n o n co g n itiv e tra its to success.) T h e ir ex
clu sio n m ay be d u e to th e failure o f te stm a k e rs to p ro d u c e an a d e q u a te
sam ple, b u t m o re likely is a reflection o f th e lim its o f even so n e b u lo u s a
c o n c e p t as intelligence. Sociability, physical attractiv en ess, a rtistic ta len t,
m o to r co o rd in a tio n , creativity, a n d th e n eed for pow er u n d o u b te d ly all
c o n trib u te to o n e ’s success in W estern society, yet n o n e o f th ese a ttrib u te s
are m e asu red by intelligence tests to an y significant degree. N o r w ould
m an y people argue th a t th ey sh o u ld be. O th e r abilities, like co m p lex p ro b
lem solving a n d m a th e m a tic a l reasoning, are n o t sa m p le d by m a n y in te l
ligence tests, yet are generally th o u g h t to be p a rt o f in tellig en t behavior.
T h e restric tio n s placed o n th e b ehaviors sam p led by in tellig en ce tests re p
resen t a b a lan c e betw een efficiency, g rea ter pred ictiv e validity, a n d th e
lim ita tio n s o f even th e m o st broadly defined n o tio n o f intelligence.
Summary
In general, ex p e rt o p in io n o n th e n a tu re o f in tellig en ce ru n s c o n tra ry to
th e m o st c o m m o n criticism s o f testing. M ost ex p e rts believe th a t p sy ch o
logists an d ed u c ato rs are in general ag re em e n t a b o u t th e d efin itio n o f
intelligence. T h is a g re em e n t is d e m o n stra te d em p irically for th e basic ele
m e n ts o f ab stra c t reasoning, p ro b le m -so lv in g ability, a n d th e cap acity to
a c q u ire know ledge. C o n sid erab le d isa g re em en t still re m a in s a b o u t th e v ari
ety o f behaviors to in c lu d e in a d efin itio n o f intelligence. T h is d isco rd
a b o u t th e precise stru c tu re o f intelligence is reflected in th e m ajo rity o p in
io n th a t th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f intelligence tests has n o t b ee n g u id ed by a
unified th e o ry o f intelligence, th o u g h it is u n clea r how a lack o f th e o ry
relates to th e validity o f th e tests. R e sp o n d en ts also feel th a t in tellig en ce
tests are d o in g an a d e q u a te jo b o f m easu rin g th e im p o r ta n t elem e n ts o f
intelligence, b u t th a t c e rta in n o n in te lle ctu al perso n al c h a ra c te ristic s can
have a significant effect on intelligence te st p e rfo rm a n c e . E x p erts disagree
75
th a t intelligence tests are n o th in g b u t m easu res o f ac q u ired know ledge, b u t
d o in d ic ate th a t w h atev er th e tests are m easu rin g it is n o t as stable as a
pu rely physical ch a racteristic such as height. W h atev er intelligence tests
are m easuring, th e m a jo rity o f ex p erts believe it is an im p o rta n t d e te rm i
n a n t o f success in A m erican society. Finally, ex p e rts believe intelligence, as
m e asu red by tests, to be best d escribed in te rm s o f general in telligence an d
su b sid iary factors.
In response to th e general q u estio n o f th e n a tu re o f intelligence, m o st
p sy c h o m etric ia n s m a in ta in som e fo rm o f o p era tio n alism , b eing m o re c o n
ce rn ed w ith valid atin g tests th a n w ith th e o rizin g a b o u t co g nitive abilities.
C o g nitive scientists, on th e o th e r h an d , rarely are co n c e rn e d w ith “ in te l
lig en ce” an d even m o re rarely a tte m p t to q u a n tify in d iv id u al differences in
co g n itive abilities for use as d e c isio n -m a k in g tools. T h is tra d itio n a l rift
b etw een m e a su re m e n t an d th e o ry ac c o u n ts for m u c h o f th e am b ig u ity
c o n c e rn in g d efin itio n s o f intelligence. B ut th e re is m o re to th e p u b lic d e
b ate over th e n a tu re o f intelligence th a n th e p a rtic u la r co g n itiv e tra its to be
in clu d ed in so m e d efin itio n , o r how these tra its are related . B u rt’s d efin i
tio n o f intelligence as “in n a te general cognitive ca p ac ity ” em p h asizes th e
h eritab le n a tu re o f intelligence an d th e b elief th a t in tellig en ce is a largely
fixed ch a racteristic o f th e in d iv id u al. C ritics fear th a t it is as m easu res o f
fixed capacity th a t intelligence an d ap titu d e tests are in te n d e d an d in te r
p reted. T h a t a tw o -h o u r p a p e r -a n d -p e n c il exam p u rp o rts to tell us so m e
th in g a b o u t o u r inherent w o rth is o n e ro u s to m o st o f us. T h e sta tu s o f
in telligence as an in n a te ch aracteristic is th e sub ject o f th e n ex t chapter.
N otes
1. E. L. Thorndike et al., “Intelligence and Its Measurement: A Symposium,”
Journal o f Educational Psychology 12 (1921): 124—147, 195-216, 271-275.
2. Ibid.. p. 128.
3. Ibid., p. 137.
4. Frank N. Freeman. “A Referendum of Psychologists: A Survey of Opinion on
the Mental Tests." Century M agazine 107 (1923):237—245.
5. Robert L. Sternberg et al. “People’s Conceptions of Intelligence,” Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology 41 (1981 ):37—55.
6. T. Anne Cleary et al. “Educational Uses of Tests with Disadvantaged Students,”
American Psychologist 30 (1975): 19.
7. Robert J. Sternberg and Douglas K. Detterman, eds., What Is Intelligence?
(Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986).
8. Robert J. Sternberg and Cynthia A. Berg, “Quantitative Integration: A Com
parison of the 1921 and 1986 Symposia," in What Is Intelligence?eds. Robert J.
Sternberg and Douglas K. Detterman (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986), pp. 157—
158.
9. Other areas that have been or are being studied include nuclear energy, environ
mental cancer, and gender differences. For discussions of the historical the
76
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The IQ Controversy
oretical issues as well as some of the case studies, see chs. ; S. Robert Lichter,
Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter The Media Elite (Washington, D.C.: Adler
and Adler, 1986); Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter, and Linda Lichter,
Elites in Conflict: Social Change in America; Stanley Rothm an and S. Robert
Lichter, “Elites in Conflict: Nuclear Energy, Ideology, and the perception of
R isk,” Journal o f C ontem porary S tu d ie s 8,3 (S u m m er/F all, Transac
tion/Society 23,3 (March/April, 1986), pp. 5-8.
Cyril Burt, “ Mental Capacity and Its Critics,” Bulletin o f the British Psycholog
ical Society 21 (1968): 11-18.
A rthur R. Jensen, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achieve
ment?” Harvard Educational Review 39 ( 1969):5.
Hans J. Eysenck, ed., A M odel fo r Intelligence (New York: Springer-Verlag,
1982); Howard Gardner, Frames o f Mind: The Theory o f M ultiple Intelligences
(New York: Basic Books, 1983).
N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin, eds.. The IQ Controversy (New York: Pan
theon Books, 1976), p. 28.
Edwin G. Boring, “ Intelligence as the Tests Test It,” N ew Republic 35
(1923):35—37.
cf. Eysenck; Robert L. Sternberg, ed., Recent Advances in Research on Intel
ligence (Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982).
Cleary et al., p. 19.
Robert J. Sternberg and Cynthia A. Berg, “Quantitative Integration: A Com
parison of the 1921 and 1986 Symposia,” in What Is Intelligence? eds. Robert J.
Sternberg and Douglas K. D etterman (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986), p. 157.
N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin, “IQ, Heritability and Inequality,” in The IQ
Controversy eds. N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin (New York: Pantheon Books,
1976), pp. 410-540.
Block and Dworkin, p. 423.
Lewis M. Term an, The M easurem ent o f Intelligence (Boston: H oughton
Mifflin, 1916).
Thorndike et al., p. 131.
Ibid.
Douglas K. Detterman, “Quantitative Integration: The Last Word?” in What Is
Intelligence? eds. Robert J. Sternberg and Douglas K. Detterman (Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, 1986), p. 164.
For example, Raymond B. Cattell, “A Culture-Free Intelligence Test, Part I.”
Journal o f Educational Psychology 31 (1940): 161-179; Raymond B. Cattell,
“Theory of Fluid and Crystalized Intelligence: A Critical Experiment,” Journal
o f Educational Psychology 54 (1963): 1-22; J. P. Guilford and R. Hoepfner, The
Analysis o f Intelligence (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971).
Jerome M. Sattler, Assessment o f Children’s Intelligence and Special Abilities,
2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1982), p. 440.
Cleary et al., p. 21; Robert A. Gordon, “Labelling Theory, M ental Retardation,
and Public Policy: Larry P. and Other Developments Since 1974,” in The
Labeling o f Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective, 2nd ed., ed. Walter R. Gove
(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980), pp. 190-191.
David Owen, None o f the Above: Behind the M yth o f Scholastic Aptitude
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985).
Anne Anastasi, Psychological Testing, 5th ed. (New York: Collier Macmillan,
1982), p. 395.
77
29. Gordon, p. 190.
30. Block and Dworkin, p. 445.
31. A rthur R. Jensen, Bias in M ental Testing (New York: Free Press, 1980), pp.
261-262.
32. Ibid., p. 270.
33. Sattler, p. 57.
34. Jensen, “How M uch,” p. 18; Sattler, p. 58.
35. Benjamin S. Bloom, Stability and Change in Human Characteristics (New
York: Wiley, 1964), p. 61.
36. Jensen, “How M uch,” p. 19.
37. Anastasi, p. 131.
38. Ibid.. p. 137.
39. Jensen, Bias, pp. 317-319.
40. Ibid.. p. 319.
41. Christopher Jencks et al.. Inequality (New York: Basic Books, 1972), p. 144.
42. Ibid.. p. 185; Jensen, Bias, p. 341.
43. Otis Dudley D uncan, “Ability and Achievement,” Eugenics Quarterly 15
(1968): 1—11.
44. Christopher Jencks et al., Who Gets Ahead? (New York: Basic Books, 1979), p.
121.
45. John E. H unter and Ronda F. Hunter, “Validity and Utility of Alternative
Predictors of Job Performance,” Psychological Bulletin 96 (1984):72-98.
46. John C. Loehlin. G ardner Lindzey, and J. N. Spuhler, Race Differences in
Intelligence (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1975), p. 169.
47. Jencks et al., Inequality, p. 179.
48. Jencks et al.. Who Gets Ahead, p. 115.
49. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, “ IQ in the U.S. Class Structure,” Social
Policy (1973):65—96; Samuel Bowles and Valerie Nelson, “The 'Inheritance' of
IQ and the Intergenerational Reproduction of Economic Inequality,” Review o f
Economics and Statistics 56 (1974):39—51.
50. Jerome H. Waller, “Achievement and Social Mobility: Relationships Among IQ
Score, Education, and Occupation in Two Generations,” Social Biology 18
(1971):252—259.
51. Anastasi. p. 144.
53. Charles Spearman, '“ General Intelligence’ Objectively Determined and Mea
sured.” American Journal o f Psychology 15 (1904):201—292.
54. Charles Spearman. The Abilities o f Man (New York: Macmillan. 1927).
55. Anastasi, pp. 366-369.
56. L. L. Thurstone, Multiple Factor Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1947).
57. J. P. Guilford. The Nature o f Human Intelligence (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1967).
58. J. P. Guilford and R. Hoepfner, The Analysis o f Intelligence (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1971).
59. Sattler. p. 39.
60. Cyril Burt, “The Structure of the Mind: A Review of the Results of Factor
Analysis." British Journal o f Educational Psychology 19 (1949): 100-111, 176—
199: A. R. Hakstian and R. B. Cattell, “ Higher-Stratum Ability Structures on a
Basis of Twenty Primary Abilities," Journal o f Educational Psychology 70
78
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
The IQ Controversy
(1978):657—669; Lloyd G. Humphries, “The Organization of H uman Abil
ities,” American Psychologist 17 (1962):475-483; Philip E. Vernon, The Struc
ture o f Human Abilities, 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1961).
John B. Carroll, “The Measurement of Intelligence,” in Robert J. Sternberg,
ed., Handbook o f Human Intelligence (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univer
sity Press, 1982), p. 73.
Raymond B. Cattell, “Theory of Fluid and Crystalized Intelligence: A Critical
Experiment,” Journal o f Educational Psychology 54 (1963): 1-22.
A rthur R. Jensen, Straight Talk About M ental Tests (New York: Free Press
1981), p. 58.
Ibid., p. 59.
cf. Godfrey H. Thomson, The Factorial Analysis o f H um an Ability, 5th ed.
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951); Gardner.
Sattler, pp. 146-150.
Anastasi, pp. 34-41; Sattler, pp. 329-333.
Anastasi, p. 22.
3
The Heritability of IQ
It is m eaningless to ask how m u c h o f an in d iv id u a l’s intelligence m ay be
a ttrib u te d to genetic factors an d how m u c h to e n v iro n m e n t. T h e d ev elo p
m e n t o f intelligence, like an y o th e r aspect o f a p e rso n ’s body a n d b eh av io r
(p h en otype), is as co m p letely d e p e n d e n t on genetic c o n s titu tio n (genotype)
as o n en v iro n m e n t. Ju st as a fertilized o vum m u st develop in to a tr a it
lad en h u m a n being in th e co n tex t o f som e e n v iro n m e n t, en v iro n m e n ta l
stim u li c a n n o t p ro d u ce a set o f tra its w ith o u t th e p ro p er g en etic m aterial.
As D o n ald H eb b has p u t it, “ To ask how m u ch h ered ity c o n trib u te s to
intelligence is like asking how m u ch th e w idth o f a field c o n trib u te s to its
area.” 1 T h e in ex tricab le n a tu re o f the g e n e -e n v iro n m e n t synthesis does
n o t, o f course, p reclu d e th e study o f the m e ch a n ism s by w hich genes an d
e n v iro n m e n t in te ract; it sim ply e lim in a te s th e possibility o f assigning an y
g rea ter im p o rta n c e to o n e facto r over th e other. F ro m th is perspective, th e
n a tu re /n u r tu re “ co n tro v e rsy ” is no controversy a t all. (A p ro p er u n d e r
sta n d in g o f th e role o f genes an d e n v iro n m e n t in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f
p h en o ty p ic tra its underscores th e a b su rd ity o f sta te m en ts, like th a t in the
title o f th e N e w York T im e s M a g a zin e “je n se n ism ” article, th a t “ in te l
ligence is largely d e te rm in e d by th e genes.” Intelligence is d e te rm in e d en
tirely by bo th th e genes an d th e en v iro n m e n t.)
W h at is n o t possible to study w ithin th e in d iv id u al is o ften m e asu rab le
in th e p o p u la tio n ; th e im p o rta n c e o f differences betw een p erso n s in genes
a n d e n v iro n m e n t to in d iv id u al differences in an y given tra it is th eo retically
a s s e s s a b le . T h e c h i e f m e a s u r e o f th is r e la tio n s h i p is h e r ita b ility .
H erita b ility is defined as th e p ro p o rtio n o f v aria tio n in a tra it a ttrib u ta b le
to genetic v ariatio n , a n d varies betw een 0 a n d 1.0. W h en th e h eritab ility o f
a tra it is 0, it m e an s th a t all o f th e v aria tio n in th e tra it am o n g m e m b ers o f
th e p o p u la tio n u n d e r study is d u e to e n v iro n m e n ta l v ariatio n . If, for e x a m
ple, th e h eritab ility o f IQ w as 0, it w ould m ean th a t th e difference in IQ
b etw een th e genius an d the reta rd a te , o r betw een an y tw o p eople, was
en tirely th e result o f different en v iro n m e n ta l experiences. T h e h eritab ility
79
80
The IQ Controversy
o f language spo k en , or o f religious p reference, is p ro b ab ly very n ea r 0.
W hen th e h eritab ility o f a tra it is 1.0, th e p resen t range o f e n v iro n m e n ta l
v aria tio n bears no rela tio n to in d iv id u al differences in th e tra it in th e
p o p u la tio n u n d e r study. E ye c o lo r is a n e x a m p le o f a tr a i t w h o se
h eritab ility is very n ear 1.0. V irtually all h u m a n b eh av io ral an d physical
c h a r a c te r is tic s fo r w h ic h a p p r o p r ia t e s tu d ie s h av e b e e n d o n e h av e
h eritab ilities betw een these tw o extrem es.
Several im p o rta n t p o in ts m u st be k ep t in m in d w h en in te rp re tin g d a ta
on th e h eritab ility o f IQ. F irst, h eritab ility deals w ith variation in a trait,
n o t w ith ab so lu te level. It in d icates th e degree to w hich in d iv id u al d if
feren ces in so m e tra it ca n be a ttr ib u te d to g en etic o r n o n g e n e tic d if
ferences. T h u s, th e average IQ o f th e p o p u la tio n as a w hole can signifi
c a n tly change as a resu lt o f so m e e n v iro n m e n ta l o r genetic ch an g es w ith o u t
affecting the h eritab ility o f IQ. If ev e ry o n e’s IQ in creased by 20 p o in ts, w ith
n o change in IQ variation (n o change in a n y o n e ’s IQ relativ e to th a t o f
others), h eritab ility w ould re m a in th e sam e.
In fact, Ja m es F ly n n has p resen ted evidence o f m assive gains in_ th e
average IQ o f w hite A m eric an s betw een 1932 a n d 1978.2 (B ecause IQ is
alw ays sta n d ard iz ed ac co rd in g to th e p o p u la tio n m ean , th e o n ly way to
ca lcu late p o p u la tio n changes across tim e is to look at th o se in d iv id u als
w ho have ta k e n at least tw o tests sta n d ard iz ed a t d ifferen t tim es. U n fo r
tu n a te ly , e a rly s ta n d a r d iz a ti o n s a m p le s o f th e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t a n d
W echsler tests did n o t in c lu d e blacks, a n d th u s F ly n n was able to co m p are
o n ly th e scores o f w hite test tak ers.) Yet IQ h eritab ility estim ates calcu lated
d u rin g th a t tim e p eriod did n o t change substantially, th o u g h estim ates have
been so m e w h at low er in rec en t years. O n e m ay h y p o th esize th a t as th e
g eneral level o f e d u c a tio n has im p ro v ed since 1932, so have th e co g nitive
skills o f th e average A m eric an , w ith o u t m u c h affecting th e d istrib u tio n o f
intelligence.
T h e average level o f intelligence in an y p o p u la tio n is obv io u sly an im
p o rta n t statistic, p a rtic u la rly in an increasingly tech n o lo g ical society w here
th e level o f cognitive skills necessary to c o m p ete in th e w orkplace c o n
tin u e s to rise. W hile h eritab ility analyses are in d e p e n d e n t o f average level
o f IQ , they ca n tell us how easy o r difficult it w ould be to m ak e significant
changes. By stu d y in g v aria tio n , we le arn th e rela tio n sh ip betw een in d iv id
ual differences in IQ an d e n v iro n m e n ta l differences betw een p eople, an d
th u s have a b e tte r u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e a m o u n t o f e n v iro n m e n ta l ch an g e
necessary to p ro d u c e changes in IQ. M oreover, th e stu d y o f v aria tio n in a
tra it like IQ m ay be o f g reat co n seq u en ce, irresp ectiv e o f th e p o p u la tio n
average. Intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests are used as d e c isio n -m a k in g tools
in situ a tio n s w here e d u c a tio n a l an d o cc u p atio n al reso u rces are scarce; a
c o m p etitiv e social stru c tu re is based on th e differences a m o n g peo p le in
81
relev an t abilities an d attrib u tes. U n d e rsta n d in g th e causes o f th ese d if
ferences, a n d su b seq u en tly being able to d o so m e th in g a b o u t th e m , m ay
th u s have p ro fo u n d effects on th e n a tu re o f co m p e titio n a n d th e d istrib u
tio n o f resources a n d o p p o rtu n itie s.
A second im p o rta n t p o in t a b o u t h eritab ility is th a t it is a p o p u la tio n specific statistic; it is u n iq u e to th e p a rtic u la r p o p u la tio n sam p led . In a
d ifferent p o p u la tio n , o r in th e sam e p o p u la tio n a t a d ifferen t tim e, a d if
ferent h eritab ility estim a te for the sam e tra it m ay be o b ta in e d as genetic
an d en v iro n m e n ta l v aria tio n change. T h e h eritab ility o f IQ is th u s n o t
fixed. As the v ariatio n in en v iro n m e n ta l ex p erien ce relev an t to p erfo r
m a n ce on intelligence tests changes in an y p o p u la tio n , so will heritability.
A very high h eritab ility for IQ th erefo re does not m ean th a t IQ c a n n o t be
su b stan tia lly altered th ro u g h en v iro n m e n ta l change. It m e an s th a t u n d e r
th e p resen t circ u m sta n ce s, a large en v iro n m e n ta l ch an g e (relativ e to p res
e n t levels o f en v iro n m e n ta l v aria tio n ) is n eeded to p ro d u c e su b stan tial
ch an ges in IQ. It is co m p letely possible th a t so m e new p ro g ram o f e n v iro n
m e n ta l m a n ip u la tio n co u ld be in tro d u c e d th a t w o u ld p ro d u c e very large
ch anges in IQ in c e rta in segm ents o f th e p o p u la tio n , th u s significantly
low ering heritability.
T h ird , h eritab le sho u ld n o t be co nfused w ith in n a te , o r genetic. C o n sid er
th e tra it o f n u m b e r o f lim bs. M ost o f us have four, an d we are in c lin e d to
say th a t th is is a genetic tra it, in th a t we in h e rit it from o u r p aren ts. T h e
h eritab ility o f n u m b e r o f lim bs is, however, pro b ab ly clo ser to 0 th a n it is to
1.0. T h is is because m u ch m o re o f th e variation betw een peo p le in n u m b e r
o f lim bs is th e result o f en v iro n m e n ta l v aria tio n (in d u stria l accid en ts, su r
gical a m p u ta tio n , etc.) th a n it is d u e to genetic variatio n .
It is an error, o f w hich m e n tal testers historically have been guilty, to
speak o f a test as m easu rin g in n a te intelligence. If th e h eritab ility o f IQ was
1.0, o n e m ight be justified in claim in g th a t differences in IQ reflect in n a te
(i.e., genetic) differences, b u t it is n o t tru e th a t th e sk ills m easu red by th e
test are “ in n a te ” an y m o re th a n they are “ e n v iro n m e n ta l.” T h e early m e n
tal testers did n o t m ak e such careful d istin c tio n s in th e ir d escrip tio n s o f th e
tests. B inet h im se lf believed th a t his scale m e asu red a c o m b in a tio n o f
“ intelligence p u re an d sim p le” a n d e n v iro n m e n ta lly d e te rm in e d ach iev e
m ents. C e rta in o f th e item s in th e scale, however, p a rtic u la rly th o se d ealin g
w ith p erfo rm a n c e m easu res ra th e r th a n verbal skills, he believed co u ld
“ isolate from th e scholastic effects th e real n ativ e intelligence.” 3
B inet differed from m an y o f his colleagues o f th e tim e w ho, w hile c o n
ced ing th a t th e new intelligence tests w ere n o t u n c o n ta m in a te d by e n v iro n
m e n t, believed th a t intelligence itself w as fixed an d co u ld n o t be signifi
c a n tly a lte re d by e n v ir o n m e n ta l c irc u m s ta n c e s . B in e t b e lie v e d th a t
intelligence, as m easured by th e tests, co u ld be im p ro v ed , an d criticized th e
82
The IQ Controversy
“ b ru ta l p essim ism ” o f th o se w ho w ould forever consign th e b ack w ard child
to a s u b n o rm a l life. In co n tra st, G o d d a rd , T erm an , an d o th e rs w ho revised
a n d en th u sia stic ally ad m in iste re d th e tests in v ario u s in stitu tio n s in th e
U n ite d States believed th em selves to be in possession o f in stru m e n ts th a t,
w hile n o t perfect, p rovided a very good m easu re o f in n a te intelligence.
Lew is T e rm a n ’s a ttitu d e was typical. U rging w id esp read in telligence testin g
in th e schools, he argued in 1916 th a t such tests are “ n ecessary to d e te rm in e
w h eth e r a given child is unsuccessful in school becau se o f p o o r n ativ e
ability, o r because o f p o o r in stru c tio n , lack o f in terest, o r so m e o th e r re
m ovable cause.”4
M an y critics o f testin g have p o in te d to sta te m e n ts o f th is so rt as ev id en ce
th a t intelligence tests were, alm o st from th e begin n in g , an a tte m p t to m a in
ta in a caste system based o n supposed in n a te , an d th e re fo re p e rm a n e n t,
differences in ability.5 (B inet is usually excepted as an in n o c e n t w hose good
in te n tio n s w ere c o rru p te d by o th ers.) W h a te v er th e in te n tio n s o f th e early
m e n ta l testers, o n e w ould be h a rd pressed to arg u e th a t m o d e rn p sy ch o
m e tricia n s h o ld such naive views o f th e role o f genes in in tellig en ce test
p erfo rm an ce . T h ere is, however, w idespread m is u n d e rsta n d in g a b o u t th is
issue am o n g th e general p ublic, w hich c o n tin u e s to view IQ tests as a t
te m p ts to m easu re in n a te intelligence.
T h is m isco n c ep tio n is largely responsible for th e su p p o sed stig m atizin g
effects o f th e IQ (see C h a p te r 5), as well as th e p ro p ag a tio n o f o th e r aspects
o f th e controversy. O n e o f th e few topics on w hich ex p e rt w itnesses o n b o th
sides o f th e L a r r y P. case w ere in a g re em e n t is th a t in telligence tests are not
m easu res o f in n a te ability; IQ is legitim ately a fu n ctio n o f a n in d iv id u a ls
e n v iro n m e n t. Ju d g e P eckham ignored th is evidence, arg u in g th a t since
th e re is no difference in “ tru e ” (i.e., in n a te ) levels o f reta rd a tio n betw een
blacks a n d w hites, tests re p o rtin g such a difference m u st be biased. To th e
ju d g e , as to m u c h o f th e general public, all e n v iro n m e n ta l effects on test
p erfo rm a n c e rep resen t bias a n d are to be avoided.
As a final p o in t a b o u t h eritab ility analyses, it sh o u ld be n o te d th a t th e
h eritab ility o f IQ is co m p letely in dependent o f w h at IQ m ean s o r w hat
in telligence tests m easure. T h e m e th o d s used to e stim a te th e h eritab ility o f
IQ are u n rela ted to the m e th o d s used to m e asu re intelligence. T h u s if on e
d ecid ed to m easu re intelligence via th e length o f th e nose, o n e co u ld o b ta in
a h eritab ility e stim a te for th is intelligence m easu re. T h e validity o f th a t
e stim a te o f th e h eritab ility o f nose length (like th e h eritab ility o f a score on
a m o re sta n d a rd intelligence test) is in d e p e n d e n t o f w h e th e r nose len g th is
an a d e q u a te m easu re o f intelligence. O n ly if o n e w ere to claim to now have
an e stim a te o f th e h eritab ility o f “ in tellig en ce” w ould th e relatio n betw een
nose length a n d intelligence be relevant. F or this reason, th is ch a p te r is
c o n c e rn e d w ith th e h eritab ility o f IQ, an d we will look at th e q u ality o f th e
83
ev id ence su p p o rtin g th is d e te rm in a tio n . T h e rela tio n sh ip o f IQ to in te l
ligence is th e sub ject o f C h a p te r 2.
U n fo rtu n a tely , h eritab ility is m u ch easier to define th a n to m easure.
H eritab ility analyses are th e p ro v in ce o f th e field o f q u a n tita tiv e genetics.
T h ese analyses use as th e ir d a ta th e co rre la tio n s in th e tra it being m e a
sured, in this case IQ scores, betw een pairs o f p erson s w ho differ in genetic
an d en v iro n m e n ta l relatedness. A co m m o n research design is to co m p are
th e c o rre la tio n s o f m o n o zy g o tic (M Z , o r identical) tw ins, w ho have all o f
th e ir genes in co m m o n , to tho se o f dizygotic (D Z , o r fra tern al) tw in s w ho
have a p p ro x im ate ly h a lf o f th e ir genes in co m m o n . A h ig h er c o rre la tio n o f
IQ scores for M Z th a n for D Z tw ins is tak en as stro n g ev id en ce for a gen etic
so u rce o f v ariatio n . K arl H olzinger, in 1929. w as o n e o f th e first to a tte m p t
a q u a n tita tiv e estim a tio n o f h eritab ility for IQ based o n tw in d a ta .6 H e
suggested a m odel for h eritab ility estim a tio n based o n th e difference b e
tw een th e co rre la tio n o f M Z tw in IQ s a n d th e co rre la tio n o f D Z tw in IQs.
S im ila r fo rm u las have been p ro p o sed an d ap p lied to tw in d a ta m o re re
cently.7 T he difficulty w ith these analyses is th a t th ey m ak e som e ra th e r
sim p listic a ssu m p tio n s a b o u t th e sources o f v aria tio n in IQ. In p articu lar,
th ey assum e th a t th e e n v iro n m e n ts o f M Z an d D Z tw in s are eq u ally sim
ilar, a n d th a t an y difference betw een M Z a n d D Z c o rre la tio n s m u st be d u e
to genetic factors. G re a te r sim ilarity o f M Z e n v iro n m e n ts c o m p a re d to D Z
e n v iro n m e n ts (p aren ts, teachers, a n d peers m ay tre a t id en tical tw ins m o re
sim ilarly th a n they trea t fra te rn a l tw ins) is o n e o f a n u m b e r o f possible
so u rces o f v ariatio n in IQ scores ignored by m a n y h eritab ility analyses. T h e
e n u m e ra tio n an d e stim a tio n o f th e precise sources o f v ariatio n c o n trib u t
ing to p h en o ty p ic v ariatio n (in th is case v ariatio n in IQ across p erso n s in a
p o p u la tio n ) has been th e p rin cip al stu m b lin g block an d m a jo r so u rce o f
c o n te n tio n in th e scholarly d eb a te over th e h eritab ility o f IQ.
Sources of Variation
A n a n a lv sis-o f-v a ria n c e m odel, as th e n am e im plies, allow s for a m o re
careful e x a m in a tio n o f th e sources o f v aria tio n in a trait. P h en o ty p ic v aria
tio n m ay be p a rtitio n e d as follow s;8
P = G + E + f( G ,E )
w here P is p h e n o ty p ic v ariatio n , G is genetic v aria tio n . E is en v iro n m e n ta l
v aria tio n , a n d f(G ,E ) is som e fu n ctio n o f th e jo in t effects o f g en o ty p e an d
e n v iro n m e n t. E ach o f th e elem e n ts on th e rig h t-h a n d side o f th e e q u a to n is
expressed as a p ro p o rtio n o f 1.0. It m ay be seen th a t G is th e sam e as
heritability.
G en e tic an d en v iro n m e n ta l variatio n m ay be eith er w ith in o r betw een
84
The IQ Controversy
fam ilies. S iblings (o th e r th a n iden tical tw ins) differ in b o th genes a n d e n
v iro n m e n t. T h is is w ith in -fa m ily v ariatio n . T otal p o p u la tio n v arian ce c o n
sists o f these differences an d th e differences betw een fam ilies. H erita b ility
analyses reveal these sources o f v aria tio n to differing degrees. For ex am p le,
stu d ies co m p a rin g M Z to D Z tw ins reflect p rim a rily w ith in -fa m ily v aria
tio n . A d o p tio n studies, in w hich ch ild ren are m oved from o n e fam ily to
an o th er, reveal th e differences betw een fam ilies.
O th e r g enetic factors to be co n sid ered in c lu d e asso rtativ e m atin g , d o m i
n an ce, a n d epistasis. A sso rtativ e m a tin g refers to th e fact th a t m a tin g is
generally n o t ra n d o m w ith respect to genotype. To th e e x te n t th a t th e re is a
positive co rre la tio n betw een th e gen o ty p es o f th o se w h o m ate, genetic
v aria tio n will increase betw een fam ilies a n d decrease w ith in fam ilies. T h u s,
if th o se w ith genes fo r higher IQ are m a tin g p rim a rily w ith each other, a n d
tho se w ith genes for low er IQ are m a tin g p rim a rily w ith each other, th e
v aria tio n in gen o ty p ic IQ will increase across fam ilies in th e p o p u la tio n .
(N o te th a t “genes fo r higher IQ ” a n d “genes for low er IQ ” do n o t im p ly
th a t th e re are specific IQ genes. I f th e re is a su b stan tia l h eritab ility fo r IQ,
however, it m e an s th a t genetic v aria tio n is asso ciated w ith v aria tio n in IQ
a n d , all o th e r th in g s being equal, c e rta in gen o ty p es will p ro d u ce h ig h er IQ
p h e n o ty p es th a n o thers.) A t th e sam e tim e, ch ild ren will look m o re like
th e ir parents. To u n d e rsta n d th is relationship, im ag in e th e m o st ex tre m e
case o f asso rtativ e m ating, in w hich m ates differed o n ly in th e ir se x -d e te r
m in in g genes. Sons o f such a p airin g w ould be id en tical g en etically to th e ir
fath e r a n d d au g h ters w ould be identical to th e ir m other.
D o m in a n c e decreases th e sim ilarity betw een th e p h en o ty p es o f p are n ts
an d ch ild ren . G en e s co m e in pairs, a n d ch ild ren in h e rit o n e o f each p air
tro m th e fath e r a n d o n e from the m other. If, for an y given gene pair, a child
in h e rits a d o m in a n t gene from o n e p a re n t an d a recessive gene from th e
other, only th e d o m in a n t gene will be m an ifest in th e ch ild ’s p h en o ty p e,
a n d th e child will look less like th e average o f its p are n ts. P h en o ty p ic
v a ria tio n will in c re ase w ith in fam ilies a n d d ecrease b etw een fam ilies.
D o m in a n c e a n d asso rtativ e m a tin g will th e re fo re have o p p o site effects, an d
to so m e degree cancel each o th e r o u t. T h is is fo rtu n a te , since very few
analyses o f IQ h eritab ility ta k e e ith e r fac to r explicitly in to acco u n t.
A n o th e r fac to r serving to decrease p a re n t-c h ild sim ilarity is epistasis,
w hich is th e resu lt o f the in te ra c tio n o f genes. T h e ch ild in h e rits a u n iq u e
co m b in a tio n o f genes from its p aren ts, a n d so m e o f th ese m ay in te ra c t in
ways n o t p red ic tab le from th e sim ple ad d itiv e c o m b in a tio n o f th e ir sep a
rate effects. E pistasis refers to these n o n a d d itiv e effects. E xisting ev id en ce
in d icates th a t epistasis is n o t an im p o rta n t facto r in v aria tio n in IQ .9
E n v iro n m e n ta l v ariance consists o f all b e tw e e n - a n d w ith in -fa m ily dif
ferences in e n v iro n m e n t, in c lu d in g p r e - an d p erin a tal effects, a n d e rro r
85
v ariance (m e a su re m e n t error). In som e m odels, en v iro n m e n ta l v arian ce is
defined as all varian ce n o t d u e to genetic factors, an d th u s in clu d es f(G,E),
th e jo in t effects o f g enotype an d en v iro n m e n t. T h is m akes no difference to
h eritab ility estim ates as long as h eritab ility is calcu lated by d iv id in g purely
genetic v ariance by to tal variance. T h e p ro b lem is th a t som e m odels in
c lu d e th e se jo i n t e ffec ts as p a r t o f g e n e tic v a ria n c e , th u s in fla tin g
h eritab ility estim ates. T h ere seem s to be little a g re em e n t a m o n g th o se w ho
c o n d u c t beh av io r genetics stu d ies w h eth e r f(G ,E ) sh o u ld be a ttrib u te d to
th e genes o r to th e e n v iro n m e n t.
T h e jo in t effects o f G a n d E can ta k e tw o form s: co v arian ce an d in te ra c
tio n . G e n e -e n v iro n m e n t co v arian ce is rep resen ted by a c o rre la tio n b e
tw een g enotype a n d en v iro n m e n t. T h re e types o f co v arian ce have been
id e n tified ,10 passive, reactive, an d active. Passive co v arian ce o ccu rs w hen
p are n ts w ho give th e ir ch ild ren genes for higher IQ, also give th e m m o re
favorable e n v iro n m e n ts. In reactive covariance, oth ers, p a rtic u la rly te a c h
ers, m ay react to a ch ild ’s abilities by p ro v id in g m o re en ric h in g e n v iro n
m e n ts for tho se w ith m o re ta len t. Finally, in active co v arian ce, th e child
itself, as a result o f genetic p red isp o sitio n to higher IQ , m ay actively seek
o u t m o re in tellectu ally stim u la tin g situ atio n s. G e n e -e n v iro n m e n t c o rre la
tio n m ay also be negative, o f course, as w hen te ach ers try to p rovide th e
m o st stim u la tin g e n v iro n m e n ts to tho se w ho seem to need th e m m ost.
P ositive co v arian ce will act to p ro d u ce greater p h en o ty p ic variab ility
th a n w ould be p re d ic ta b le fro m gen etic a n d e n v iro n m e n ta l v a ria tio n
alo n e. D avid Layzer has argued th a t co v ariatio n is always p resen t to an
u n k n o w n degree in h u m a n b eh a v io r-g e n etic studies, th u s in v a lid a tin g an y
a tte m p ts to sep arate genetic from en v iro n m e n ta l in flu en ces.11 N o n e th e
less, m an y h eritab ility analyses have a tte m p te d to e stim a te th e e x te n t o f
covariance. R o b e rt P lo m in an d his colleagues have d e m o n stra te d th a t th e
p ro b lem is statistically soluble, b u t claim th a t th e n ecessary d a ta are at
p re se n t la c k in g .12 T h e re is th e re fo re a g reat deal o f in d e te rm in a c y in
co v ariance estim ates, w hich can have a p ro fo u n d effect on h eritab ility
calcu latio n s. For exam ple, Je n ck s et al., based on th e ir an aly sis o f sources
o f v ariatio n in b e h a v io r-g e n e tic studies o f IQ , ca lc u lated th a t g e n e -e n
v iro n m e n t covariance ac c o u n ts for 20 p erc en t o f to ta l p h en o ty p ic v ari
ance, an d derived a h eritab ility estim a te o f 0 .4 5 .13 L o eh lin , Lindzey, a n d
S p u h ler suggesting a lte rn a tiv e h y potheses o f g e n e -e n v iro n m e n t rela tio n s
in Je n ck s et al.'s d ata, p ro d u ce an equally plausible co v arian ce estim a te o f
15 p ercen t, leading to a h eritab ility ca lc u latio n o f a b o u t 0 .6 0 .14 T h e situ a
tio n is fu rth e r co m p lic ate d by stu d ies th a t do n o t a tte m p t to estim a te
co v arian ce at all, leading to inflated e stim a tes o f G , E, o r b o th .15
R elated to covariance is g e n e -e n v iro n m e n t in te ra c tio n , w hich refers to
th e differential effects o f c e rta in e n v iro n m e n ts on c e rta in genotypes. In
86
The IQ Controversy
o th e r w ords, an in te ra c tio n occurs w hen genoty p es a n d e n v iro n m e n ts are
n o t ad d itiv e in th e ir effects. T h u s, it m ay be th a t in d iv id u als w ith genes for
low er IQ profit m o re from a c e rta in e n v iro n m e n t th a n th o se w ith genes for
h igher IQ, o r vice versa. R ich a rd L ew ontin p o in ts o u t th a t th e p resen ce o f
g e n e -e n v iro n m e n t in te ra c tio n severely lim its th e u sefulness o f h eritab ility
an a ly se s.16 W h a t is really desired, he argues, is th e n o rm o fre a c tio n , w hich
d escribes th e p h en o ty p ic o u tc o m e o f all possible g e n e -e n v iro n m e n t c o m
b in a tio n s. Since h eritab ility analyses are based on o n ly a sm all n u m b e r o f
these c o m b in a tio n s (those p resen t in th e p o p u la tio n being studied), th e
results o f an y given analysis m ay only be generalized if each e n v iro n m e n t
h as th e sam e effect on d ifferent g enotypes— in o th e r w ords, if g e n e - e n
v iro n m e n t effects are additive. W hile th e re are few good tests o f in te ra c tio n
effects, p a rtic u la rly in tw in stu d ie s,17 at least fo u r review s o f th e lite ra tu re
have been u n ab le to find an y evidence for significant g e n e -e n v iro n m e n t
in te ra c tio n s in IQ .18 To d ate, few h eritab ility analyses o f IQ have in c lu d ed a
specific in te ra c tio n term .
P hilip V ernon has p resen ted th e follow ing c h a rt as a way o f su m m arizin g
th e several sources o f varian ce c o n trib u tin g to p h en o ty p ic v a ria tio n :19
G betw een fam ilies
G w ithin fam ilies
A M (asso rtativ e m a tin g
betw een paren ts)
D (d o m in a n ce)
G
G - E co v arian ce (effects o f
co v a riatio n betw een G an d E)
G - E in te ractio n
f(G ,E )
E betw een fam ilies
E w ith in fam ilies
E
e (e rro r o r u n reliab ility variance)
T h e m o re ac cu rately such factors as d o m in a n c e , asso rtativ e m atin g ,
co variance, a n d in te ra c tio n can be estim a ted , th e m o re a c cu rate will be
su b se q u en t m easu res o f heritability. We have seen th a t early h eritab ility
analyses to o k n o n e o f these factors in to ac co u n t. M o d e rn in v estig atio n s
have a tte m p te d to deal w ith these variables, som e m o re co m p letely th a n
others.
T h e state o f th e b e h a v io r-g e n e tic a r t is rep rese n ted by b io m e trica l an a ly
sis, w hich a tte m p ts to m odel th e sources o f v aria tio n a m o n g th e n u m e ro u s
g enetic an d en v iro n m e n ta l rela tio n sh ip s in an y given b eh a v io r-g e n etic
study.20 B iom etrical analysis is ad v an tag eo u s in th a t it allow s for statistical
tests o f th e e x te n t to w hich each o f th e factors listed above is im p o rta n t to
87
th e analysis at h an d . In d e te rm in a c y persists, however, becau se sufficient
d a ta are n o t always available to c o n d u c t all th e necessary tests, an d because
an alysts m ay disagree a b o u t th e way v ariance is p a rtitio n e d in th e ir original
m odel. Je n ck s et al. w ere o n e o f the first to ap p ly a p ath analysis to b e
h av io r-g e n e tic d a ta in o rd e r to a c c o u n t for th e rela tio n sh ip betw een th e
in telligence o f p a re n ts a n d child ren . As m e n tio n e d , L o eh lin an d his co l
leagues w ere able to derive a very different h eritab ility estim a te from th e
sam e d a ta by assu m in g th a t ad o p tiv e p are n ts’ intelligence affects th e ch ild ’s
e n v iro n m e n t directly, ra th e r th a n via the ad o p tiv e p are n ts’ gen o ty p e, as in
Je n ck s et al.’s m odel. Such a ssu m p tio n s are largely arb itrary , an d can p ro
d u ce q u ite varied results.21
T h e h eritab ility analyses to be discussed vary in th e degree to w hich th ey
deal w ith different sources o f bias, a n d in th e ir u n d erly in g m odels. M o re
over, th e q u ality o f b e h a v io r-g e n e tic d a ta has been lim ite d by such factors
as p o o r sam p lin g p ro ce d u re s a n d th e in stab ility o f test scores across age
groups. It should n o t be surprising, therefo re, th a t estim ates o f h eritab ility
also vary. T h e best o n e can ho p e for at th is p o in t is ev id en ce for or ag ain st a
significant genetic c o m p o n e n t o f differences in test scores, a n d a ran g e o f
h eritab ility estim ates.
T h e D ata
Figure 3.1, ta k en from a 1981 review by T h o m a s B o u ch ard an d M atth ew
M cG ue, su m m arize s th e results o f 111 b e h a v io r-g e n e tic stu d ies o f m e a
su red intelligence, rep resen tin g th e vast m a jo rity o f all such stu d ies ever
d o n e .22 Each p o in t rep resen ts th e c o rre la tio n , from o n e study, betw een
intelligence test scores o f p ersons o f the in d icated gen etic a n d e n v iro n m e n
tal relatedness. T h e vertical b a r th ro u g h each d istrib u tio n rep resen ts th e
m e d ia n c o rre la tio n from all stu d ies o f th a t typ e. T h u s, for ex a m p le ,
B o u chard an d M cG u e p resent th e results o f 41 stud ies o f th e IQ co rrela tio n
o f D Z tw ins reared to g e th er (line 5 in th e figure), rep resen tin g 5,546 p airs
o f D Z tw ins. T h e m e d ian IQ c o rre la tio n across these stu d ies is 0.58.
A m o re m ean in g fu l statistic th a n th e m e d ian is th e w eighted average,
w hich takes in to a c c o u n t differences in sam p le size betw een in v estig atio n s,
an d is given in o n e o f th e co lu m n s on th e right side o f th e figure. C o rre la
tio n coefficients from studies involving larger n u m b e rs o f subjects are
given m o re w eight in ca lcu latin g th e average c o rre la tio n . F or D Z tw in s
reared a p a rt, this average is 0.60.
T h e arro w u n d e r each d istrib u tio n in d icates th e p red icted co rrela tio n o f
a sim ple polygenic m odel, assu m in g th a t all p h en o ty p ic v aria tio n in IQ is
d u e to ad d itiv e gen etic effects (no d o m in a n c e o r epistasis), w ith no assortativ e m ating. IQ heritab ility u n d e r such a m odel is 1.0.
0.0
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
MONOZYGOTIC TWINS REARED APART
•
MIDPARENT-MIDOFFSPRING
REARED TOGETHER
\
I
MIDPARENT-OFFSPRING
REARED TOGETHER
4672
.85
.86
3
65
.67
.72
0.92
(2)
0.46
3
410
.73
.72
2.66
(2)
1.33
8
992
.475
.50
8.11
(7)
1.16
.60
94.5
(40)
2.36
6.31
41
SIBLINGS REARED TOGETHER
*
SIBLINGS REARED APART
•I*
1
SINGLE PARENT-OFFSPRING
REARED TOGETHER
k
5546
.58
69
26,473
.45
.47
403.6
(64)
2
203
.24
.24
.02
32
8433
.385
.42
4
814
.22
.22
~
2.46
.02
(1)
211.0
(31)
6.81
9.61
(3)
3.20
A
SINGLE PARENT-OFFSPRING
REARED APART
1
1
HALF SIBLINGS
.
COUSINS
.
NON BIOLOGICAL SIBLING PAIRS
(ADOPTED/NATURAL PAIRINGS)
‘
.
.1 .
*1
r
a
1
A
ADOPTING MIDPARENT-OFFSPRING
. it.
1
A
ADOPTING PARENT-OFFSPRING
.
..
200
.35
.31
4
1,176
.145
.15
1.02
(2)
0.51
5
345
.29
.29
1.93
(4)
0.48
6
369
.31
.34
10.5
(5)
2.10
.24
6.8
(5)
1.36
1.33
6.41
6
758
.19
.
t.
*
o!o
(1)
6
1397
.18
19
6.64
(5)
16
3817
.365
.33
96.1
(15)
A
ASSORTATIVE MATING
1.55
2
|
A
NON-BIOLOGICAL SIBLING PAIRS
(ADOPTEO/ADOPTEO PAIRINGS)
34
-----
A
|
X2
d.f.
81.29
<33)
A
I
f
•
DIZYGOTIC TWINS
REARED TOGETHER
WEIGHTEO
AVER
AGE
X2 (d.I.)
1.55
1 '
M 0
O-JO
0.30
0.10
0 50
0 60
0 70
0 00
o5o
1JW
FIGURE 3.1
Familial correlations for IQ. The vertical bar in each distribution indicates the median correlation; the arrow, the
correlation predicted by a simple polygenic model.
The IQ Controversy
MONOZYGOTIC TWINS
REARED TOGETHER
NO.
OF
MEDIAN
NO.
CORREL
CORREL
OF
ATIONS PAIRINGS ATION
89
Two facts should be noted ab o u t Figure 3.1 before th e d a ta are ex a m in e d
m o re carefully. First, th e re is a w ide d istrib u tio n o f IQ c o rre la tio n s across
stu d ies ex a m in in g sim ilarly related in d iv id u als (i.e., th e d o ts o n each line
are w idely spread). M uch o f th is v ariatio n m ay be a ttrib u te d to differences
in th e p o p u la tio n s being stu d ied , b u t p ro ce d u ra l differences, such as th e
ty p e o f intelligence test used, an d th e degree o f en v iro n m e n ta l co rrela tio n
b etw een in d iv id u als being raised a p a rt, u n d o u b te d ly c o n trib u te to th e in
d e te rm in a c y o f th e results. T h e v ariatio n am o n g c o rre la tio n coefficients
sh o u ld serve to rein fo rce th e ea rlier caveat th a t precise h eritab ility esti
m ates are n o t possible.
T h e second im p o rta n t ch aracteristic o f th e F igure 3.1 d a ta is th a t th ey do
n o t in clu d e th e results o f studies by Sir C yril B urt. T h e sto ry o f B u rt’s
a p p a re n t fraud is described briefly in C h a p te r 1. R em arkably, even if B urt
d id fake m u c h o f his d ata, he w as careful to m a n u fa c tu re reaso n ab le fig
ures, as th e in c lu sio n o f his results m ak e little difference to th e m e d ian
values calcu lated across stu d ies.23
C o m p a rin g the w eighted average c o rre la tio n s to th e sim p le polygenic
p red ic tio n s (the arrow s), o n e finds som e ra th e r large q u a n tita tiv e d isc re
p ancies, b u t great sim ilarity in q u alita tiv e tren d s. F or ex am p le, average
c o rre la tio n decreases w ith degree o f k in sh ip (genetic related n ess) from M Z
tw ins, to siblings reared together, to h alf-sib lin g s, to co u sin s, to u n rela ted
p ersons reared a p a rt (n o t show n in F igure 3.1, b u t fo u n d to c o rrela te very
close to 0 in at least fo u r investigations).24 Precise q u a n tita tiv e ag reem en t
betw een th e m odel an d th e d a ta is n o t to be expected for a n u m b e r o f
reasons, fo rem o st o f w hich is th a t th e m o d el assum es an IQ h eritab ility o f
1.0, an d e n v iro n m e n ta l v ariatio n is c e rta in ly im p o rta n t to differences in
IQ. In a d d itio n , th e c o rre la tio n coefficients given are n o t co rrec ted for
u n reliab ility o f test scores (even tw o test scores from th e sam e perso n will
n o t co rrela te 1.0), a n d th e sim ple m odel ignores facto rs such as d o m in a n c e
a n d asso rtativ e m atin g . T h e last row in F igure 3.1 in d ic ates th a t th e degree
o f asso rtativ e m atin g , at least a t th e p h e n o ty p ic level, is su b stan tia l in th e
p o p u la tio n s stu d ied , as th e IQ scores o f m ates have a w eighted average
c o rre la tio n o f 0.33.
W hile the q u alita tiv e a g re em e n t betw een genetic related n ess a n d IQ
co rre la tio n in th e k in sh ip d a ta describ ed above is suggestive o f a significant
gen etic c o n trib u tio n to v aria tio n in IQ , these d a ta are a t least co n siste n t
w ith a p urely e n v iro n m e n ta l hypothesis. As K a m in p o in ts o u t, th e d if
ferences in genetic sim ilarity betw een siblings a n d h alf-sib lin g s, for e x a m
ple, m ay be c o n fo u n d e d w ith differences in e n v iro n m e n ta l sim ilarity .25
Siblings are p ro b ab ly trea ted m o re alike th a n are h alf-sib lin g s, w h o are
tre a te d m o re sim ilarly th a n cousins, a n d so on, an d th is m ay a c c o u n t for
th e differences in IQ co rrela tio n s. T h e m o re in fo rm a tiv e co m p a riso n s to
90
The IQ Controversy
m ak e are tho se in w hich genetic an d en v iro n m e n ta l facto rs can be to so m e
d egree separated. T hus, it w ould be difficult for a strict e n v iro n m e n ta list to
explain w hy M Z tw ins reared a p a rt sho u ld have m o re sim ila r IQ scores
th a n siblings reared together, o r th a n u n rela ted p erso n s reared to g e th er
(ad o p tiv e pairings) for th a t m atter.
In a sense. M Z tw ins reared a p a rt (M Z A ) rep resen t th e ideal n atu ra l
e x p e rim e n t in beh av io r genetics. T hese in d iv id u als have id en tical genes,
a n d d ifferent e n v iro n m e n ts, an d th erefo re an y difference in IQ m u st be d u e
to e n v iro n m e n ta l v a ria tio n . T h e fact th a t th e re is so little d iffe ren ce
(w e ig h te d average c o r r e la tio n , u n c o rre c te d fo r u n re lia b ility = 0 .7 2 ) is
ta k en as stro n g evid en ce for a significant genetic c o m p o n e n t to IQ. T h a t
M Z tw ins reared to g e th e r show an even higher co rre la tio n (0.86) in d icates
th a t en v iro n m e n ta l v ariatio n is also im p o rta n t. B ut M Z A stu d ies are n o t
w ith o u t so m e ra th e r serious flaws. F or o n e th in g , such in d iv id u als are rare:
w hen B u rt’s d a ta are excluded, th e to ta l n u m b e r o f M Z A pairs ev er stu d ied
is on ly 65 (th o u g h B o u ch ard is c u rre n tly g ath erin g d a ta on a n o th e r th ir ty fo u r pairs).26 T h e p rim a ry criticism o f M Z A studies, however, h as been
th a t, th o u g h reared a p a rt, th e e n v iro n m e n ts o f th e sep arated tw in s are
often highly c o rre la te d .27 F or exam ple, K am in cites cases in w hich M Z A
tw in s w ere raised by relatives, lived in th e sam e sm all to w n , a n d a tte n d e d
th e sam e school. A lso, ad o p tio n agencies often try to m a tc h p a re n ts to th e
ch aracteristics o f th e child, a n d one w ould th e re fo re ex p ect M Z tw in s to
e n d u p in sim ila r hom es. C o rrela ted e n v iro n m e n ts are a p ro b lem for a
g en etic in te rp re ta tio n o f M Z A research because th ey m ig h t p ro d u ce th e
high M ZA IQ c o rre la tio n in th e absence o f an y gen etic d e te rm in a tio n o f
v ariatio n . As V ernon notes, however, th e c o rre la te d e n v iro n m e n t p ro b lem
still c a n ’t explain, from an e n v iro n m e n ta list sta n d p o in t, w hy M Z A tw in s
sh o u ld show a h ig h er IQ c o rre la tio n th a n D Z tw in s rea re d to g e th er.28
S urely even relatives living in th e sam e tow n c a n n o t su p p ly en v iro n m e n ts
as sim ila r as o n e set o f p a re n ts provide th e ir ow n tw in ch ild ren .
K am in has fu rth e r attac k ed m u c h o f th e M ZA d a ta , arg u in g th a t re
searchers d id n o t ta k e in to a c c o u n t age effects on te st scores, even th o u g h
th e tw ins tested varied w idely in age.29 K a m in p e rfo rm e d a series o f in tr i
cate a g e -c o rre c tio n s o n these d ata, a n d claim s to have e lim in a te d m o st o f
th e IQ c o rre la tio n . E lsew here in his book, sim ila r statistical te c h n iq u e s are
used to d iscred it o th e r b e h a v io r-g e n e tic studies p u rp o rtin g to show a sig
n ifican t genetic c o m p o n e n t to v aria tio n in IQ. M a n y a u th o rs find K a m in ’s
analyses ad hoc a n d a rb itra ry ,30 th o u g h he is ce rtain ly n o t w ith o u t his
su p p o rte rs.31 It sh o u ld be p o in te d o u t th a t K a m in is o n e o f th e few p a rtic i
p a n ts in th e IQ d eb a te w ho believes th e re is no rea so n ab le ev id en ce for a n y
h eritab le c o m p o n e n t to IQ.
A n o th e r c o m m o n te c h n iq u e used in estim a tin g h eritab ility involves th e
91
c o m p ariso n o f M Z an d D Z tw ins, alluded to earlier. T h e g reater sim ilarity
in IQ betw een M Z tw'ins (average w eighted co rrela tio n = 0.86), w ho share
all th e ir all genes, th a n betw een D Z tw ins (0.60), w ho sh are o n ly h alf th e ir
genes, ind icates genetic in v o lv e m e n t in IQ v aria tio n . C ritics have argued
th a t m u ch o f the increased sim ilarity o f M Z tw ins is th e resu lt o f M Z tw ins
having m o re sim ila r e n v iro n m e n ts. Yet studies like th a t o f H ugh L y tto n in
1977. involving extensive o b se rv a tio n s a n d o th e r m easu res o f in te ractio n s
betw een p are n ts a n d th e ir tw in child ren , co n c lu d e th a t th e g reater e n v iro n
m e n tal sim ilarity o f M Z over D Z tw ins is p rim a rily a result, n o t a cause, o f
th e ir b ehavioral sim ilarity.32
N o t show n in F igure 3.1 are d a ta on the ch ild ren o f id en tical tw ins, w ho
offer a u n iq u e o p p o rtu n ity for beh av io r geneticists becau se th ey are as
sim ila r genetically to the tw in o f th e ir p are n t as th ey are to th e ir p are n t, yet
th ey p resu m a b ly share little o f th e ir a u n t o r u n c le ’s en v iro n m e n t. R ich ard
R ose an d his associates have fo u n d th a t c h ild re n ’s scores o n th e W echsler
Block D esign test c o rre la te alm o st as highly w ith scores o f th e ir c o -tw in
a u n t o r uncle, as w ith tho se o f th e ir c o -tw in p are n t, w hile th e co rrela tio n
w ith th e spouse o f th e ir c o -tw in a u n t o r uncle is zero .33 T h ese tw in -fa m ily
d ata, w hich also in clu d e c o rre la tio n s o f test scores betw een cousins, w ho
are as genetically related as half-sib lin g s, yield h eritab ility estim ates in th e
range o f 0.4 to 0.6.
In m a n y ways th e best source o f b eh a v io r-g e n etic d a ta com es from
ad o p tio n studies, in w hich ch ild ren are raised by p are n ts to w h o m th ey are
g e n e tic a lly u n re la te d . T h e se in v e stig a tio n s allow fo r n u m e ro u s c o m
p ariso n s betw een p are n ts an d ch ild ren relev an t to th e h eritab ility issue. In
a d d itio n , the m an y sources o f d a ta from in d iv id u als o f k now n genetic an d
e n v iro n m e n ta l rela tio n are m o re am en a b le to a c cu rate statistical e stim a
tio n o f sources o f bias like d o m in a n c e , covariance, an d in te ra c tio n .34 W hile
a d o p tio n research has not been as co m m o n historically as tw in research,
for exam ple, recen t years have seen the in itia tio n o f several larg e-scale
ad o p tio n studies.35
T h e average w eighted IQ co rrela tio n betw een an a d o p te d child a n d its
ad o p ted p are n t, w ho supplies m u ch o f th e ch ild ’s e n v iro n m e n t a n d n o n e o f
its genes, is 0.19. T h e IQ c o rre la tio n betw een an ad o p ted child a n d its
n a tu ra l p are n t, w ho supplies th e child's genes a n d very little o f its e n v iro n
m en t, is 0.22. T h e difference betw een these tw o n u m b e rs is n o t significant,
a n d it suggests th a t differences in n a tu ra l p are n ts’ genes c o n trib u te a t least
as m u ch to v ariatio n in ch ild ren 's IQ as differences in e n v iro n m e n t su p
plied by ad o p tiv e parents. C o n siste n t w ith th e idea th a t b o th genes an d
e n v iro n m e n t are im p o r ta n t is th e fact th a t b o th th e n a tu ra l p a r e n tad o p ted child a n d ad o p tiv e p a re n t-a d o p te d child c o rre la tio n s are less th a n
th e n a tu ra l p a r e n t-n a tu r a l child co rrela tio n (0.42).
92
The IQ Controversy
F u rth e r evidence com es from a c o m p a riso n betw een a d o p te d ch ild ren .
G en etically u n rela ted ch ild ren reared to g e th e r have a w eighted average IQ
c o rre la tio n o f 0.34, co n siste n t w ith a significant en v iro n m e n ta l c o m p o n e n t
to IQ variatio n . O n th e o th e r h an d , full siblings, w h o share a b o u t h a lf th e ir
genes, have an IQ co rre la tio n o f 0.47 w hen reared together, a n d M Z tw ins,
w ho share all th e ir genes, have IQ s th a t c o rre la te 0.86. T h ese c o m p a riso n s
strongly in d ic ate th a t gen etic v aria tio n is im p o rta n t as well.
As n u m e ro u s as are th e d a ta sources from a d o p tio n studies, so are th e
p o te n tia l problem s. S om e o f th e m ostly c o m m o n ly cited , an d p o te n tia lly
serious, include: (1) the selective p la ce m en t o f ch ild ren in to h o m es sim ila r
to tho se in w hich they w ere b o rn , leading to a co rre la tio n betw een n a tu ra l
a n d ad o p tiv e p are n tal en v iro n m e n ts; (2) v aria tio n in th e age o f ad o p tin g —
ch ild ren in m an y studies are a d o p te d q u ite late, m e an in g th a t th ey have
h ad significant ex p o su re to th e n a tu ra l p are n ts’ e n v iro n m e n t; (3) age an d
SES differences betw een n a tu ra l an d ad o p tiv e p a re n ts— ad o p tiv e p are n ts
are often significantly o ld e r a n d m o re p ro sp ero u s th a n n a tu ra l p aren ts,
w hich m ay p ro d u c e sy stem atic differences in u p b rin g in g (T h is is precisely
th e o p p o site o f p ro b lem n u m b e r 1. Ideally, n a tu ra l an d ad o p tiv e p a re n ta l
e n v iro n m e n ts sho u ld be com p letely u n c o rre la te d .); a n d (4) restric tio n o f
ran g e o f a d o p tiv e p a re n ts — p a rtic u la rly in o ld e r a d o p tio n stu d ies, th e
ad o p tiv e p are n ts te n d e d to be m ostly o f ab o v e-av erag e IQ an d SES. T h is
ac ts b o th to restric t e n v iro n m e n ta l v a ria tio n a n d th u s p ro d u c e h ig h er
h eritab ility estim ates, a n d to lim it th e generality o f th ese e stim a tes.36
W hile every ad o p tio n stu d y suffers from o n e o r m o re o f th ese p ro b lem s
to som e degree, th e general q u ality o f th e research has been high en o u g h ,
an d th e c u m u la tiv e w eight o f th e evidence so overw helm ing, th a t v irtu ally
everyone w ho has stu d ied these d a ta agrees th a t th ey s u p p o rt th e idea o f a
su b stan tia l genetic c o n trib u tio n to v aria tio n in IQ .37 N eedless to say, K a
m in disagrees, an d has engaged in p u blished d eb ate o n th e su b ject,38 c la im
ing th a t th e p ro b lem s listed above, a n d m ore, in v a lid a te a n y ev id en ce for
h eritab ility to be fo u n d in ad o p tio n studies.
9. Sources o f h e rita b ility evidence.
R e sp o n d en ts w ere asked to check all sources o f ev id en ce from a list o f
five pro v id ed th a t they believed to be co n siste n t w ith a significant n o n -z e ro
h eritab ility o f IQ in th e A m eric an w hite p o p u la tio n . (H e ritab ility estim ates
are p o p u la tio n -sp ec ific, a n d m o st IQ h eritab ility stu d ies have in volved
o nly w hite subjects.) S ources o f evidence were: k in sh ip co rrela tio n s, s tu d
ies o f m o n o zy g o tic tw ins reared a p a rt, m o n o z y g o tic -d iz y g o tic tw in c o m
parisons, tw in -fa m ily studies, a n d ad o p tio n studies.
T h e results are re p o rte d in Table 3.1. T w enty-five p erc en t o f su b jects d id
93
TABLE 3.1
Sources of Non-Zero IQ Heritability Evidence
% Indicating
Reasonable Evidence
Source
Kinship correlations-general comparisons between degree of
genetic relatedness and IQ correlations
Studies of monozygotic twins reared apart
Studies comparing monozygotic twins to dizygotic twins
Twin-family studies comparing, for example, the children of
monozygotic twins
Adoption studies
69.1
84.4
70.3
55.3
63.4
N ote: 94% o f re sp o n d e n ts in d ic a ted a t least o n e so u rce as p ro v id in g re a so n a b le e vidence o f a
s ig nifican t n o n -z e ro h e rita b ility o f IQ in th e A m e ric a n w h ite p o p u la tio n .______________________
n o t feel qualified to answ er th is q u estio n . O f th o se w ho d id resp o n d , 94
p e rc e n t check at least o n e source o f evidence, an d each o f th e sou rces is
ch ecked by a t least h a lf th e resp o n d e n ts. S u p p o rt is greatest fo r stu d ies o f
M Z tw ins reared a p a rt (84.4 p ercen t) a n d w eakest for tw in fam ily stu d ies
(55.3 percent). T h e la tte r result is u n d e rsta n d a b le , as tw in fam ily stu d ies
are a relatively recen t d ev e lo p m e n t in th e b eh a v io r g enetics o f IQ .39 T aken
together, these results are a stro n g in d ic a tio n th a t ex p e rts believe w ith in g ro u p differences in IQ to be at least p artially in h erited . T h ey also d e m o n
strate how far K a m in ’s po sitio n is from th e psychological consensus.
E stim ates o f IQ H eritability
D espite the tre m e n d o u s v aria tio n in th e c o rre la tio n a l d ata, an d th e n u
m e ro u s differences in m odels used, m o d e rn estim ates o f IQ h eritab ility
have fallen w ith in a surprisingly n arro w range, co rre sp o n d in g to a very
su b sta n tia l genetic c o m p o n e n t to differences in IQ. In his m u c h -d isc u sse d
H a rvard E d u ca tio n a l R ev iew article , Je n sen arriv ed a t a h eritab ility esti
m a te o f 0.80, as an average o f e stim a tes th e n in th e literatu re . All o f th ese
estim ates w ere based o n n o n -b io m e tric a l analyses, however, m e a n in g th a t
th ey e ith e r ignored, o r d id n o t carefully a c c o u n t fo r d o m in a n c e , asso rtativ e
m a tin g , c o v a rian c e, a n d in te ra c tio n . In a la te r p u b lic a tio n , Je n se n a t
te m p te d to d erive rea so n ab le e stim a tes for each o f th ese facto rs fro m th e
p u b lish ed d a ta (no in te ra c tio n w as assum ed), a n d ca m e u p w ith a v alu e o f
0.65 for G , 0.28 for E, an d 0.07 for co v arian ce.40 H is co v arian ce e stim a te is
co n sid erab ly low er th a n m o st o th e r such calcu latio n s.
J. L. Jin k s a n d D. W. F u lk er p erfo rm ed a b io m e tric a l analysis o f b e
h a v io r-g e n e tic d a ta in 1970, in w hich th ey w ere able to te st for th e sta tis
tical significance o f v ario u s biasing factors.41 T h e ir h eritab ility e stim a te o f
94
The IQ Controversy
a b o u t 0.72 is o n e o f th e highest in th e m o d e rn literatu re . Two aspects o f
th e ir analysis m ay a c c o u n t for this discrepancy. F irst, th ey used a m o re
lim ited set o f d a ta th a n have Je n sen an d others, in c lu d in g o nly th o se stu d
ies for w hich statistical testing for covariance a n d in te ra c tio n w ere possible.
S econd, Jin k s a n d F ulker fo u n d n o evidence for e ith e r significant in te ra c
tio n o r co v arian ce in any o f th e studies they analy zed . T h e la tte r finding is
difficult to believe in light o f bo th em p irical research a n d co m m o n sense.
Yet Jin k s a n d L. J. Eaves, a n d F ulker an d H an s E ysenck, using sim ilar
analyses, reached th e sam e co n clu sio n a b o u t larger d a ta sets, estim a tin g
h eritab ility at 0.68 an d 0.69, respectively.42
T h e h eritab ility e stim a te o f C h risto p h e r Je n ck s a n d his c o llab o rato rs has
been p erh a p s the m ost w idely discussed an d rein terp re ted o f all analyses.
T h e ir results are G = 0.45, E = 0.35, a n d G - E co v arian ce = 0.20. S ubse
q u e n t reanalyses have p ro d u ce d higher estim ates o f G . N ew to n M o rto n
p erfo rm ed a b io m e trica l analysis o n essentially th e sam e set o f d a ta as
Je n ck s et al., using a d ifferent m odel o f (i.e., m a k in g different a ssu m p tio n s
a b o u t) th e way in w hich th e genes a n d e n v iro n m e n ts o f p aren ts, ch ild ren ,
an d siblings in te ra c t to in fluence IQ .43 M o rto n ’s e stim a tes are G = 0.67,
E = 0.19, a n d G - E co v arian ce = 0.14. As n o te d , L o eh lin a n d his associates,
by m ak in g on ly m in o r ch anges to th e Je n ck s et al. m odel, d eriv ed e stim a tes
o f G = 0.61, E = 0 .2 4 , a n d G - E c o v a ria n c e = 0.15. N eil G o u rla y also
provides a m odified analysis o f Je n ck s et al.’s d ata, in th is case ta k in g in to
a c c o u n t v aria tio n in gen o ty p e w ith age.44 (It m ig h t seem c o u n te rin tu itiv e
th a t genes, w hich are fixed a t b irth , ca n vary w ith age. B ut g en o ty p e does
v ary w ith age, in its effects on p h e n o ty p e , as gen etic factors o p era te at
d ifferent p o in ts in tim e th ro u g h o u t th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e in d iv id u al.) H is
estim a tes are sim ila r to tho se o f L oehlin et al.: G = 0.61, E = 0.21, a n d G -E
co v arian ce = 0.19. To th e cre d it o f Je n ck s an d his cow orkers, th ey recog
nized th e a rb itra ry an d in d e te rm in a n t n a tu re o f m u c h o f b e h a v io r-g e n e tic
analysis, a n d re p o rte d th e ir h eritab ility e stim a te as ± 0.20.
T h e co n sid erab le ag re em e n t am o n g m a n y o f th ese analyses, th o u g h im
pressive, sh o u ld n o t lead o n e to give to o m u c h w eight to precise h eritab ility
estim ates. As discussed, v aria tio n s in p ro ce d u re betw een studies, in c lu d in g
th e tests given a n d th e p resence o r absence o f a p p ro p ria te co n tro ls, a n d th e
in d e te rm in a c ie s o f b e h a v io r-g e n e tic analysis, m ak e it m u c h safer to argue
th a t a co n sid erab le p ro p o rtio n o f v aria tio n in IQ is d u e to differences in
genes, th a n to claim th a t th a t p ro p o rtio n falls w ith in an y given range. As a
case m p o in t, m o st o f th e h eritab ility analyses describ ed above w ere b ased
on d a ta p rese n ted in a 1963 s u m m a ry o f b eh a v io r gen etic stu d ies o f IQ by
L. E rle n m e y e r-K im lin g a n d Lissy Jarv ik (the fo re ru n n e r o f B o u ch ard an d
M c G u e ’s s u m m a ry [Fig. 3.1]). E stim ates o f h eritab ility d eriv ed fro m these
d a ta m ay be inflated because th ey in c lu d ed B u rt’s results, w hich, w hile
95
generally sim ila r to tho se o f o th e r investigations, are co n siste n t w ith a
slightly higher p ro p o rtio n o f genetic varian ce.45 M oreover, a review o f th e
resu lts o f re c e n t b e h a v io r-g e n e tic stu d ies, in c lu d in g p a rtic u la rly la rg e scale an d statistically so p h isticated ad o p tio n studies in H aw aii an d Texas,
in d icates these d a ta are co n sisten t w ith IQ h eritab ility e stim a tes “closer to
0 .50 th a n 0.70.”46
10. Do yo u believe there is sufficient evidence to arrive at a reasonable
e stim a te o f th e h erita b ility o f IQ in th e A m eric a n w hite p o pulation?
T h e vagaries o f h eritab ility estim a tio n are reflected in th a t 50 p erc en t o f
those w ho felt qualified to answ er th is q u estio n do n o t believe it is possible
to arriv e at a reaso n ab le estim ate. T his response is, o f course, very different
from saying th a t the h eritab ility o f IQ is ju s t as likely 0 as it is 0.50, as th e
results o f q u estio n 9 indicate. T h o u g h m a n y ex p e rts believe it is n o t p o ssi
ble to precisely specify IQ heritability, th ey are nearly u n a n im o u s in th e ir
b elief th a t th e h eritab ility is su b stan tia lly different from 0.
A m o n g re sp o n d e n ts to th e q u e stio n n a ire w ere th ir ty - f o u r m e m b ers o f
th e B ehavior G en e tic s A ssociation, all o f w h o m resp o n d e d to q u estio n 10.
T h is su b g ro u p o f ex p erts is m u ch m o re likely th a n th e rest o f th e sam p le to
believe th a t a reaso n ab le estim a tio n o f IQ h eritab ility is possible (76 per
c e n t “ Yes" versus 48 percen t “ Yes” for n o n -B G A resp o n d e n ts, p < .001).
10a. W h ite h erita b ility estim ate.
O nly tho se resp o n d e n ts w ho felt th e re w as sufficient ev id en ce w ere asked
to p rovide a h eritab ility estim ate.
T h e m ean e stim a te for th e 214 received is .596 (S D = .1 6 6 ) , m ean in g
th a t these ex p e rts believe th a t a b o u t 60 p erc en t o f th e v ariatio n in IQ
am o n g th e A m erican w hite p o p u la tio n is a ttrib u ta b le to gen etic v ariatio n .
11. Do yo u believe there is sufficient evidence to arrive at a reasonable
e stim a te o f th e h erita b ility o f IQ in th e A m eric a n black population?
G iven th e d e a rth o f a p p ro p ria te studies, we exp ected th e p ercen tag e o f
affirm ative responses to be m u c h low er here th a n on q u e stio n 10. In d eed ,
o nly 26 p erc en t o f tho se w ho felt qualified to answ er th e q u estio n believe
th a t a reasonable black IQ heritab ility e stim a te is possible.
1la. B lack h erita b ility estim ate.
T he m ean heritab ility e stim a te for 101 received is .571 (SD = . 178). A
heritab ility o f th is m a g n itu d e m ean s th a t ap p ro x im ate ly 57 p erc en t o f th e
96
The IQ Controversy
v aria tio n in IQ w ithin th e A m erican black p o p u la tio n is th e resu lt o f ge
netic v aria tio n . It says n o th in g a b o u t th e possible causes o f th e average
b la c k -w h ite difference in IQ. W ith in -p o p u la tio n h eritab ility bears little if
an y relatio n to th e q u estio n o f b e tw e e n -p o p u la tio n differences. M isu n d er
sta n d in g o f th is d istin c tio n , w hich will be discussed m o re fully in th e next
chapter, has been th e source o f a large p ro p o rtio n o f th e highly e m o tio n a l
rh e to ric th a t has c h a racterize d m u ch o f th e IQ controversy, in w hich believ
ers in a su b stan tia l w ith in -g ro u p IQ h eritab ility have been accu sed o f
assigning blacks to a p e rm a n e n t low er class.
The M eaning o f H eritability A nalyses
W h at is to be m ad e o f th e a p p a re n t overw h elm in g co n sen su s a m o n g
ex p e rts th a t a su b stan tia l p o rtio n o f existing v aria tio n in IQ is a ttrib u ta b le
to genetic v ariatio n ? O f w h at value is such in fo rm a tio n ? M . W. F eld m a n
an d R ich a rd L ew ontin argue th a t h eritab ility analyses o f p h e n o ty p ic traits
are o f little use, since “ n o statistical m eth o d o lo g y exists th a t will en a b le us
to p red ic t th e range o f p h en o ty p ic possibilities th a t are in h e re n t in an y
g enotype, n o r can an y te c h n iq u e o f statistical estim a tio n p rovide a c o n
vincing arg u m e n t for a genetic m e ch a n ism m o re co m p lic ate d th a n o n e o r
tw o M e n d elian loci w ith low o r c o n s ta n t p e rm a n e n c e .”47 In o th e r w ords,
h eritab ility e stim a tes tell us on ly a b o u t th e rela tio n betw een v aria tio n in
p h en o ty p e, g enotype, a n d e n v iro n m e n t, an d n o th in g a b o u t th e p a rtic u la r
p h en o ty p e to be expected from any given g e n o ty p e -e n v iro n m e n t c o m
b in a tio n , p a rtic u la rly from e n v iro n m e n ts o u tsid e th e existing ran g e o f
v ariatio n .
A d escrip tio n o f th e rela tio n s betw een p h en o ty p e a n d p a rtic u la r g en o
ty p e -e n v iro n m e n t c o m b in a tio n s, d escribed earlier as th e n o rm o f reac
tio n , c a n o n ly be d e riv e d fro m an a n a ly sis o f v a ria tio n (h e rita b ility
analysis) if ad d itiv ity (n o n in te ra c tio n ) holds betw een gen o ty p es a n d e n
v iro n m e n ts.48 T h is fact m ay be m ad e clearer by lo o k in g at specific n u m
bers. A h eritab ility estim a te for IQ o f 0.6 0 m ean s th a t, on average in th e
p o p u la tio n u n d e r study, a 1- s ta n d a r d d ev iatio n (SD ) ch an g e in IQ req u ires
a 2 '/2 SD change in IQ -re le v a n t en v iro n m e n t, b u t o n ly a 1 2h SD ch an g e in
IQ -re le v a n t genotype. T h e ability to p red ic t from th is in fo rm a tio n th e
effect o f a 1-S D change in IQ -re le v a n t e n v iro n m e n t on th e IQ o f an y
specific in d iv id u a l d ep e n d s o n th e effects o f e n v iro n m e n t being in d e p e n
d e n t o f g enotypic level (no in te ractio n ). If th e re is g e n e -e n v iro n m e n t in te r
a c tio n , th e n p r e d ic tio n re q u ire s n o t o n ly k n o w le d g e o f th e av e rag e
relatio n s, b u t specific in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e in d iv id u a l’s g en o ty p e as well.
G e n e -e n v iro n m e n t in te ra c tio n , F eld m an a n d L ew o n tin argue, is a c h a ra c
teristic o f th e n o rm o f rea ctio n o f m o st p h en o ty p ic traits. A nalyses p u r
97
p o rtin g to show n o in te ra c tio n (see referen ces above), th e y claim , are
severely lim ited by th e n arro w range o f e n v iro n m e n ts stu d ied . T h u s, th e
o n ly way to get an a c cu rate p ic tu re o f th e fu n ctio n al rela tio n s betw een
g en o type a n d e n v iro n m e n t is th ro u g h a m e ch a n istic d escrip tio n o f the
processes u n d erly in g gene ac tio n , a n d n o t th ro u g h a statistical analysis o f
p o p u la tio n variation.
S an d ra S carr an d L ouise C a rte r-S a ltz m a n answ er F eld m an a n d Lew ontin ’s charges by p o in tin g o u t th a t the la tte r a u th o rs ignore th e im p o rta n t
q u e stio n s th a t h eritab ility analyses can answ er:
Answers to questions about the current intellectual state of human popula
tions. the distribution of intelligence, and the likely success of improving
intellectual phenotypes through intervention with known environmental m a
nipulations call for a statistical model of contemporary sources of variance in
the population. Knowledge of evolutionary history, selection pressures, or
enzyme activity at a few loci will not help. Nor will appealing to the unpredic
table effects of yet-to-be-devised interventions help solve the problems of
the here and now.49 (emphasis in the original)
F e ld m a n a n d L ew o n tin are c o rre c t, o f co u rse, in p o in tin g o u t th a t
h eritab ility analyses tell us little, if an y th in g , a b o u t u n trie d en v iro n m e n ta l
m a n ip u la tio n s, n o r d o they allow m u ch in th e way o f specific p red ictio n s.
S carr a n d C a rte r-S a ltz m a n argue th a t it is no n eth eless o f value to have a
b e tte r u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e general effects o f m a n ip u la tio n s w ith in th e
existing range. T h is was precisely Je n se n ’s in te n tio n w hen he a tte m p te d to
an sw er th e q u e stio n “ H ow m u c h can we b oost IQ a n d sch o lastic ach iev e
m e n t? ” G iven th e high degree o f h eritab ility o f IQ (he estim a ted it a t a b o u t
0.80), the answ er was “ n o t m u ch , on average, w ith in th e existing ran g e o f
e n v iro n m e n ts.” T his, Je n sen believed, co u ld help ex p lain th e a p p a re n t
failure o f larg e-scale in te rv e n tio n pro g ram s like H ead S ta rt to b o o st IQ
significantly.
D espite the H ead S ta rt results (the general p a tte rn is an im m ed ia te te n
tó tw e n ty -p o in t increase in IQ from th e preschool p ro jects, w hich d o es n o t
last beyond the second o r th ird grade, th o u g h long te rm gains in ach iev e
m e n t are c o m m o n ),50 o th ers have re p o rte d d ra m a tic IQ gains th ro u g h
en v iro n m e n ta l m a n ip u la tio n . T h e m o st w idely cited stu d ies in th is area
have been tho se by H aro ld Skeels a n d o th ers a t th e Iow a C hild W elfare
R esearch S tatio n begin n in g in th e 1930s, a n d th e M ilw aukee P ro ject o f
R ich a rd H eber a n d his colleagues, c o n d u c te d in th e early 1970s.51
In 1945, a n d again in 1949, M arie S kodak an d Skeels re p o rte d fo llo w -u p
resu lts o f an ad o p tio n study in w hich ch ild ren w ere a d o p te d from lo w -IQ
m o th e rs an d raised in h ig h -q u a lity e n v iro n m e n ts, w here th e ir ad o lescen t
IQ s w ere tw enty to th irty p o in ts higher th a n th e ir n a tu ra l m o th e rs’. T h is
98
The IQ Controversy
study, like o th e rs from th e Iowa group, w ere criticized at th e tim e by fol
low ers o f Lewis T erm an , w ho saw such results as a n tith e tic a l to th e ir own
views o f the largely genetic c h a ra c te r o f m easu red in tellig en ce.52 A n article
in th e F eb ru ary 1940 P sychological B ulletin by Q u in n M c N e m a r o f S ta n
ford presents a critical ex a m in a tio n o f all th e Iowa stu d ies p u b lish ed to
d a te .53 In a style rem a rk a b ly sim ila r to th a t K am in used th ir ty - f o u r years
la ter to d e b u n k h eritab ility research, M c N e m a r la u n ch e d an u n rele n tin g
attac k on m ethodological an d statistical flaws in th e d a ta p u rp o rtin g to
show sig n ific a n t e n v iro n m e n ta l in flu e n c e s o n IQ. M u c h like K a m in ,
M c N e m a r was ev en tu ally able to explain away all o f th e Iowa results.
U n fo rtu n a tely , this bit o f scholarly leg erd em ain req u ired n o t o n ly e x te n
sive statistical reanalyses, b u t a s su m p tio n s o f th e follow ing sort: “O u r guess
is th a t the ‘u n k n o w n ’ fathers o f illegitim ate ch ild ren are a p t to be in te lle c
tu ally su p e rio r to know n fathers, th e in tellectu al su p e rio rity being a facto r
in th e ir rem a in in g u n k n o w n .”
M u ch o f th e n aiv ete o f M c N e m a r a n d o th e r critics in p ain tin g th e d eb a te
in te rm s o f “ h e re d ita ria n s” versus “ e n v iro n m e n ta lis ts ,” a n d th e ir u n
w illingness to accept evidence for a n y en v iro n m e n ta l in flu en ce, reflects an
o ld e r view a m o n g m e n tal testers o f tests as m easu res o f “ in n a te ” in te l
ligence. A p ro p e r u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e role o f genes an d e n v iro n m e n t in
th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f the p h e n o ty p e w as at th a t tim e ju s t b eg in n in g to tak e
h old in the psychological co m m u n ity , as th e first b e h a v io r-g e n e tic stu d ies
o f IQ w ere being com p leted .
H ad M c N e m a r u n d ersto o d th e tru e n a tu re o f heritability, he w ould n o t
have been so a la rm e d by th e Iowa data. As Je n sen p o in ts o u t, th e S ko d ak
an d Skeels d a ta are c o n siste n t w ith a very high IQ h eritab ility estim a te .54
Je n sen notes th a t th e p ro p er co m p ariso n in th is stu d y is n o t betw een th e
ch ild ’s IQ an d th e n atu ra l m o th e r’s IQ, b u t betw een th e c h ild ’s IQ an d his
expected IQ, had he been raised by his n a tu ra l m other. T aking in to a c c o u n t
regression to th e m ean (children o f p are n ts w ith d ev ian t IQs, w h eth e r high
o r low, will, o n average, have IQ s closer to th e p o p u la tio n m ean). Je n sen
calcu lated th e difference betw een actu al an d exp ected IQ to be a b o u t th ir
te en points. A gain o f th is m a g n itu d e is c o n siste n t w ith a h eritab ility esti
m a te as high as 0.80, given th e n o t u n rea so n ab le a s su m p tio n th a t th e
ad o p tiv e p a re n ts in th e Iow a stu d y pro v id ed an e n v iro n m e n t a b o u t tw o
sta n d a rd d ev iatio n s b etter th a n th e n a tu ra l p are n ts w ould have provided.
In an even m o re ex tre m e case o f en v iro n m e n ta l change, Skeels re p o rts a
tw e n ty -fiv e -y e a r fo llo w -u p o f a g ro u p o f th irte e n ch ild ren ad o p ted in to
n o r m a l h o m e s fro m a n e x tre m e ly u n s tim u la tin g o r p h a n a g e . W h e n
ad o p ted at age n in e tee n m o n th s, these ch ild ren had an average IQ o f 64, as
did eleven o th e r ch ild ren w ho w ere left in th e o rp h an ag e. Six years later, th e
a d o p te d ch ild ren h ad an average IQ o f 9 6 .55 C o n siste n t w ith th is rem a rk a -
99
ble im p ro v e m en t, tw en ty -fiv e years later th e th irte e n w ere fo u n d to be
p ro d u ctiv e citizens w ith ch ild ren o f th e ir own o f average IQ. T h e eleven
c o n tro l subjects w ere e ith e r still in stitu tio n aliz ed o r w ere in very lo w -statu s
jo b s. As rem a rk a b le a n d h e a rte n in g as these results are, even IQ im p ro v e
m e n t o f this m a g n itu d e m ight be expected in a p o p u la tio n w ith a high
degree o f h eritab ility for IQ, given th e ex trem e en v iro n m e n ta l d ep riv a tio n
suffered by th e ch ild ren in the o rp h a n a g e .5'’ A ssum in g th a t 40 p erc en t o f
t h e v a r i a n c e in IQ is t h e r e s u l t o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a t i o n
(h eritab ility = 0.60), a tw o -sta n d a rd d ev iatio n increase in IQ (32 p o in ts, as
in th e Skeels an d D ye study) req u ires a 3 .2 -sta n d a rd d ev iatio n im p ro v e
m e n t in e n v iro n m e n t.
O ne o f th e m ost freq u en tly cited studies o f th e effects o f en v iro n m e n ta l
in te rv en tio n on IQ is th e M ilw aukee P roject. B eginning in th e late 1960s,
ch ild ren at high risk for m e n tal reta rd a tio n (low p are n tal IQ co m b in ed
w ith a ghetto e n v iro n m e n t) w ere provided w ith intellectu ally en ric h ed e n
v iro n m e n ts a n d p ro p e r n u tritio n an d health care. T h e in te rv e n tio n began
at th ree m o n th s o f age a n d c o n tin u e d u n til th e ch ild ren e n tered g ra m m a r
school. R ich ard H eb er an d his associates re p o rt th a t a t age eight to nine,
these ch ild ren had an average IQ tw e n ty -fo u r p o in ts h ig h er th a n th a t o f a
m a tch ed gro u p o f u n tre a te d controls. T ho u g h often cited as an ex am p le o f
th e o verw helm ing im p o rta n c e o f e n v iro n m e n t to v ariatio n in intelligence,
an IQ diff eren tial o f tw e n ty -fo u r p o in ts is prob ab ly n o t in c o n siste n t w ith a
large heritability, in light o f the extensive n a tu re o f th e in te rv e n tio n (ch il
d ren atte n d e d a tra in in g ce n te r seven h o u rs a day, five days a w eek, for over
five years, an d th e pro g ram also inclu d ed ed u c a tio n for th e m others), an d
th e very p o o r e n v iro n m e n ts ex p erien ced by co n tro l subjects.
N onetheless, th e M ilw aukee P roject results are am o n g th e m ost d ra
m atic ever re p o rte d in an in te rv e n tio n study, an d b ea r clo ser scrutiny.
P h ilip V ernon has p o in te d o u t th a t th e tw e n ty -f o u r -p o in t IQ difference at
age eight to n in e was dow n from a b o u t th irty p o in ts at age six, a n d d a ta
from o th e r in te rv e n tio n studies in d icate th a t th e tw o g ro u p s will score even
m o re sim ilarly la ter in life.57 M oreover, the p ro ce d u ra l d etails a n d c o m
plete results o f th e M ilw aukee P roject have never been review ed in a p ro fes
sionally refereed jo u rn a l. Yet these results c o n tin u e to be w idely cited, b o th
in th e p o p u la r press a n d in college textb o o k s. R o b e rt an d B arb ara S o m m er
recently rep o rted th a t nearly h a lf o f all a b n o rm a l a n d d ev e lo p m e n ta l psy
chology tex tb o o k s p u b lish ed since 1977 m e n tio n th e M ilw aukee study.58
T h a t th e M ilw aukee P roject has n o t u n d erg o n e professional review does
n o t m ean th a t its results are invalid, b u t the u n critica l accep tan ce o f th is
stu d y is an in d ic atio n th a t in th e field o f cognitive abilities, as in an y o th e r
are a o f science, bo th p rofessionals an d n o n p ro fessio n als are m o re likely to
accept results th a t are co n siste n t w ith th e way they feel th e w orld sh o u ld be.
100
The IQ Controversy
(R ic h ard H e rrn ste in has n o te d th a t in 1981 R ich a rd H eb e r an d an asso
ciate w ere co n v icted o f n u m e ro u s co u n ts o f d iv e rtin g in stitu tio n a l funds,
a n d th a t th ey w ere se n ten c ed to th ree years in p riso n .59 T h e p o in t o f H errn s te in ’s revelatio n is n o t th a t th e M ilw aukee P ro ject d a ta are less valid
because Dr. H eb er is a thief, b u t ra th e r th a t H e b e r’s co n v ictio n w ent u n re
p o rte d by th e sam e m ed ia sources th a t offered th e M ilw aukee P ro ject d a ta
as evidence for th e overw helm ing im p o rta n c e o f e n v iro n m e n t over h ere d
ity in d e te rm in in g intelligence. It is unlik ely th a t A rth u r Je n sen o r H e rrn s
te in h im s e lf w ould have b een so k in d ly tre a te d h ad th e y e n c o u n te re d
sim ila r difficulties w ith th e law.)
D ifficulties w ith th e M ilw aukee P ro ject n o tw ith stan d in g , th e re is reaso n
to believe th a t en v iro n m e n ta l in te rv e n tio n can p ro d u ce large IQ gains,
p articu la rly in cases o f severe d ep riv a tio n . Je n se n ’s sta te m e n t a b o u t th e
failure o f co m p e n sa to ry ed u c a tio n , in ad d itio n to b eing a largely rh eto ric al
device, was d irec ted at la rg e -scale in te rv e n tio n p ro g ram s. In his 1969 a r ti
cle, Je n sen review s successful p ro g ra m s60 th a t, like th e M ilw aukee P roject,
involved intensive in te rv e n tio n (m an y h o u rs each day o ver long p eriods,
a n d very low s tu d e n t-te a c h e r ratios) a n d ch ild ren w hose n o rm a l e n v iro n
m e n ts p u t th e m at ex tre m e risk o f m e n tal re ta rd a tio n .61 Since th e Je n sen
a rtic le a n d th e M ilw aukee P roject, th e re have b een sim ila r successes in
p ro g ra m s o f th is so rt (th o u g h th e re still rem a in s a q u es tio n o f how long
these ch ild ren can m a in ta in th e ir IQ ad v an tag e over th e ir n o n p ro g ra m
c o u n te rp a rts w ith o u t c o n tin u e d in te rv en tio n ).62 R e ce n t years have also
seen positive results in th e te ach in g o f th in k in g skills to b o th ch ild ren an d
ad u lts, th o u g h global IQ is o ften n o t an o u tc o m e m e asu re in such stu d ies.63
T h e a p p a re n t su b stan tia l h eritab ility o f IQ is c o n siste n t w ith th ese su c
cesses, as it is w ith th e failure o f o th e r p ro g ra m s in w hich th e in te rv e n tio n
a n d /o r d e p riv a tio n w as n o t so extrem e. In a d d itio n to w h atev er h eu ristic
value h eritab ility estm ates m ay have in th e ir ow n right, th ey also serve to
clarify the lim its o f o u r existing know ledge a n d th e ran g e o f o u r p rese n t
possibilities. M eanw hile, th e search c o n tin u e s for new a n d b e tte r ways to
im prove in tellectu al skills. B ecause th ey d o n o t deal w ith novel e n v iro n
m e n tal m a n ip u la tio n s, h eritab ility analyses d o n o t p reclu d e th e search for
new ways to im prove intelligence. If a n y th in g , th e know ledge th a t p rese n t
m a n ip u la tio n s are n o t very effective en co u rag es ex p e rim e n ta tio n .
N otes
1. Donald O. Hebb, A Textbook o f Psychology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders,
1958). p. 129.
2. James R. Flynn, “The Mean IQ of Americans: Massive Gains, 1932 to 1978,”
Psychological Bulletin 95 (1984):29-51.
101
3. Alfred Binet, quoted in Joseph Peterson, Early Conceptions and Tests o f Intel
ligence (Yonkers-on-H udson, NY: World Book, 1925), pp. 204 and 274.
4. Lewis M. Term an, The M easurem ent o f Intelligence (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1916), p. 5.
5. Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure o f Man (New York: N orton, 1981); Leon
J. Kamin, The Science and Politics o f IQ (New York: Wiley, 1974); Clarence J.
Karier, “Testing for Order and Control in the Corporate Liberal State,” in The
IQ Controversy, ed. N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin (New York: Pantheon,
1976), pp. 339-373.
6. Karl J. Holzinger, “The Relative Effect of Nature and Nurture Influences on
Twin Differences,” Journal o f Educational Psychology 20 ( 1929):245—248.
7. R. C. Nichols, “The Inheritance of General and Specific Ability,” National
Merit Scholarship Research Reports 1 (1965); Stephen G. Vandenberg, “What
Do We Know Today About the Inheritance of Intelligence and How Do We
Know It?” in Intelligence: Genetic and Environmental Influences, ed. R. Cancro
(New York: G rune and Stratton, 1971). pp. 182-218.
8. J. L. Jinks and D. W. Fulker, “Comparison of the Biometrical Genetical, MAVA,
and Classical Approaches to the Analysis of Human Behavior,” Psychological
Bulletin 73 (1970):312; Philip E. Vernon, Intelligence: Heredity and Environ
ment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1979), p. 184.
9. Vernon, p. 183.
10. Robert Plomin. J. C. DeFries, and John C. Loehlin. “Genotype— Environment
Interaction and Correlation in the Analysis of Human Behavior,” Psychological
Bulletin 84 ( 1977):309—322.
11. David Layzer, “Heritability Analyses of IQ Scores: Science or Numerology?”
Science 183 (1974): 1259-1266.
12. Plomin et al. pp. 317-320.
13. Christopher Jencks et al.. Inequality (New York: Basic Books, 1972), pp. 266
319.
14. John C. Loehlin, G ardner Lindzey, and J. N. Spuhler. Race Differences in
Intelligence (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975), pp. 300-302.
15. Plomin et al., p. 321.
16. Richard C. Lewontin, “The Analysis of Variance and the Analysis of Causes,”
American Journal o f Human Genetics 26 ( 1974):400—411.
17. Plomin et al., p. 315; Sandra Scarr and Louise C arter- Saltzman, “Genetics and
Intelligence,” in Handbook o f Human Intelligence, ed. Robert J. Sternberg
(Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 820.
18. L. Erlenmeyer-Kimling, “G ene-Environm ent Interactions and the Variability
of Behavior,” in Genetics, Environment and Behavior, ed. L. Ehrman, G. S.
Omenn, and E. Caspari (New York: Academic Press, 1972); A rthur R. Jensen,
"IQs of Identical Twins Reared Apart,” Behavior Genetics 1 ( 1970): 133—148;
Jinks and Fulker, p. 342: Plomin et al., pp. 314-317.
19. Vernon, p. 185.
20. L. J. Eaves. "Testing Models for Variation in Intelligence,” H eredity 34
(1975): 132—136; Jinks and Fulker.
21. A rthur S. Goldberger, "Pitfalls in the Resolution of IQ Inheritance,” in Genetic
Epidemiology, ed. N. E. M orton and C. S. Chung (New York: Academic Press,
1978).
22. Thom as J. Bouchard Jr. and Matthew McGue, "Familial Studies of Intel
ligence: A Review,” Science 212 (1981): 1056.
102
The IQ Controversy
23. B. Rimland and H. Munsinger, “Burt's IQ D ata,” Science 195 (1977):248.
24. L. Erlenmeyer-Kimling and Lissy F Jarvik, “Genetics and Intelligence: A Re
view,” Science 142 (1963): 1477.
25. Kamin, pp. 73-95.
26. Matt McGue et al., “Information Processing Abilities in Twins Reared A part,”
Intelligence 8 (1984):239—258.
27. Kamin, pp. 33-56; M. Schwartz and J. Schwartz, “Evidence Against a Genetical Com ponent to Performance on IQ Tests,” Nature 248 (1974):84-85.
28. Vernon, p. 175.
29. Kamin, pp. 56-65.
30. D. W. Fulker, “ Review of ‘The Science and Politics of IQ’ by L. J. K am in,”
American Journal o f Psychology 88 ( 1975):505-519; Sandra Scarr-Salaptek,
“ Review of Kam in’s ‘The Science and Politics of IQ,” ’ Contemporary Psychol
ogy 21 (1976):98—99; Peter Urbach, “Progress and Degeneration in the IQ
Debate,” British Journal o f the Philosophy o f Science 25 (1974):99—135, 235—
259.
31. Jerry Hirsch, “To Unfrock the Charlatans,” Sage Race Relations Abstracts 6
(1981 ):24—28; James M. Lawler, IQ, Heritability and Racism (New York: Inter
national Publishers, 1978), pp. 165-172; R. C. Lewontin, Stephen Rose, Not in
Our Genes (New York: Pantheon, 1984), pp. 83-129; Susan Orbach, Joe Sch
wartz, and Mike Schwartz, “The Case for Zero Heritability,” Science fo r the
People 6 (1974):23—25; Howard F Taylor, The IQ Game (London: Harvester.
1980); Adam Vetta, “Concepts and Issues in the IQ Debate,” Bulletin o f the
British Psychological Society 33 (1980):241-243.
32. Hugh Lytton, “Do Parents Create, or Respond, to Differences in Twins?” De
velopmental Psychology 13 (1977):456—459; Robert Plomin. Lee Willerman,
and John C. Loehlin, “Resemblance in Appearance and the Equal Environ
m ents A ssum ption in Twin Studies of Personality,” Behavior Genetics 6
(1976):43—52; Sandra Scarr and Louise Carter-Saltzm an, “Twin Method: De
fense of a Critical Assumption,” Behavior Genetics 9 (1979):527-542.
33. Richard J. Rose et al., “Genetic Variance in Nonverbal Intelligence: Data from
Kinships of Identical Twins,” Science 205 (1979): 1153-1155.
34. Jinks and Fulker; Plomin et al., “G enotype-Environm ent," p. 314.
35. Scarr and Carter-Saltzm an, “Genetics and Intelligence,” pp. 833-863.
36. H. Munsinger, “The Adopted Child's IQ: A Critical Review,” Psychological
Bulletin 82 (1975):623—659.
37. H. Munsinger; Scarr and Carter-Saltzm an, “Genetics and Intelligence,” pp.
833-863; Vernon, pp. 215-230.
38. Kamin; Munsinger; Leon J. Kamin, “Com ment on Munsinger’s Review of
Adoption Studies," Psychological Bulletin 85 (1978): 194-201; H. Munsinger.
“ Reply to K am in,” Psychological Bulletin 85 (1978):202-206.
39. Scarr and Carter-Saltzm an, “Genetics and Intelligence," p. 831.
40. A rthur R. Jensen, “The Problem of Genotype-Environm ent Correlation in the
Estimation of Heritability from Monozygotic and Dizygotic Twins,” Acta Geneticae, Medicae et Gemellologiae, 1977.
41. Jinks and Fulker, p. 346.
42. J. L. Jinks and L. J. Eaves, “ IQ and Inequality,” Nature 248 ( 1974):287-289; D.
W. Fuller and Hans J. Eysenck, “ Nature and Nurture: Heredity” in Hans J.
Eysenck, The Structure and Measurement o f Intelligence (New York: Springer
Verlag, 1979).
103
43. Newton E. Morton. "H um an Behavioral Genetics,” in Genetics. Environment,
and Behavior, ed. L. Ehrman. G. S. Omenn, and E. Caspari (New York: Aca
demic Press. 1972).
44. Neil Gourlay. "Heredity Versus Environment: An Integrative Analysis,” Psy
chological Bulletin 80 (1979):596—615.
45. D. C. Rowe and R. Plomin. "The Burt Controversy: A Comparison of Burt's
Data on IQ with Data from Other Sources,” Behavior Genetics 8 ( 1978):81-84.
46. Robert Plomin and J. C. DeFries. “Genetics and Intelligence: Recent Data,”
Intelligence 4 (1980):21.
47. M. W. Feldman and R. Lewontin, “The Heritability ‘H ang-U p’,” Science 190
(1975): 1168.
48. Lewontin. pp. 409-41 1.
49. Scarr and Carter-Saltzm an. “Genetics and Intelligence,” p. 797.
50. A. Harrell. The Effects o f the Head Start Program on Children’s Cognitive
Development (Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv
ices. 1983); Westinghouse Learning Corporation, The Impact o f Head Start: An
Evaluation o f the Effects o f Head Start on Children's Cognitive and Affective
Development (Athens. Ohio: Ohio University, 1969); S. H. White et al.. Federal
Programs fo r Young Children: Review and Recommendations (Washington,
DC: U.S. D epartment of Health. Education, and Welfare, 1973).
5 1. Harold M. Skeels and H. B. Dye. "A Study of the Effects of Differential Stimula
tion on Mentally Retarded Children,” Proceedings o f the American Association
for Mental Deficiency 44 (1939)pp. 114-136; Marie Skodak and Harold M.
Skeels, “A Follow-Up Study of Children in Adoptive Homes,” Journal o f Ge
netic Psychology 66 ( 1945):21-58; Marie Skodak and Harold M. Skeels, “A
Final Follow-Up Study of One Hundred Adopted Children,” Journal o f Ge
netic Psychology 75 ( 1949):85-125: Harold M. Skeels, “Adult Status of Chil
dren with C ontrasting Early Life Experiences: A F ollow -U p S tudy,”
Monographs o f the Society for Research in Child Development 31 (1966); R.
Heber et al.. Rehabilitation o f Families at Risk fo r Mental Retardation (Prog
ress Rep.) (Washington. DC: U.S. D epartment of Health, Education, and Wel
fare. 1972); H. Garber and R. Heber. “The Milwaukee Project,” in Research to
Practice in M ental Retardation, ed. P. M ittler (Baltimore: University Park
Press. 1977), pp. 1 19-127.
52. Vernon, p. 9.
.
53. Quinn McNemar. "A Critical Examination of the University of Iowa Studies of
Environmental Influences Upon the IQ,” Psychological Bulletin 37 (1940):6392.
54. A rthur R. Jensen. “Let’s Understand Skodak and Skeels, Finally,” Educational
Psychologist 10 (1973):30—35.
55. Skeels: Skeels and Dye.
56. Vernon, p. 208.
57. Ibid.. p. 135.
58. Robert Sommer and Barbara A. Sommer. “Mystery in Milwaukee: Early Inter
v en tio n , IQ and Psychology T extbooks,” A m erican P sychologist 38
(1983):982-985.
59. R. J. Herrnstein, “IQ Testing and the M edia,” Atlantic Monthly, (August
1982):70.
60. R. M. Darlington et al.. "Preschool Programs and Later School Competence of
Children from Low-Income Families.” Science 208 (1980):202—204; John R.
,
104
The IQ Controversy
Berrueta Clement et al.. Changed Lives: The Effects o f the Perry Preschool
Program on Youths Through Age 19 (Ypsilanti, Ml: High/Scope Press, 1984).
61. A rthur R. Jensen, How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achieve
ment?” Harvard Educational Review 39 (1969):96-101.
62. M. B. Karnes, “Evaluation and Implication of Research with Young Handicap
ped and Low-Income Children,” in Contemporary Education fo r Children,
Ages 2 to 8, ed. J. C. Stanley (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1973), C. T. Ramey, D. MacPhee, and K. O. Yeates, “Preventing Developmen
tal Retardation: A General Systems Model,” in How and How Much Can
Intelligence Be Increased? ed. D. K. D etterman and R. J. Sternberg (Norwood
NJ: Ablex, 1982).
63. Raymond S. Nickerson. David N. Perkins, and Edward E. Smith, The Teaching
o f Thinking Skills (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1985); A rthur Whimbey,
Intelligence Can Be Taught (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1975).
4
Race and Class Differences in IQ
N o are a o f te stin g has been th e sub ject o f as m u c h p u b lic co n c ern , an d
o u trag e, as th e issue o f race a n d class differences in in tellig en ce a n d ap
titu d e te st scores. T h a t such differences exist is a m a tte r o f fact: disag ree
m e n t o cc u rs over how th e y are to be in te rp re te d . T h e m o st c o m m o n
e x p lan a tio n , a n d th e m o st c o m m o n criticism leveled ag ain st tests, is th a t
th e y are cu ltu rally biased. As th e arg u m e n t goes, average test score d if
ferences betw een racial an d so c io eco n o m ic g roups do n o t reflect real d if
ferences in in tellectu al ability, b u t ra th e r th a t tests o f m e n tal ab ility are in
large p a r t m e asu res o f c e rta in c u ltu ra l variables. T h ese v ariab les have
n o th in g to d o w ith intelligence, it is said, b u t differ betw een racial an d
e c o n o m ic groups. T h o se w ho d efend tests, on th e o th e r h an d , argue th a t
w h atev er bias th e re is is sm all, an d th a t g ro u p score d ifferen tials p rim arily
rep rese n t real differences in intellectu al ability. In th is view, claim s o f test
b ias c o n stitu te a case o f b la m in g the m essenger. T h e d eb a te over c u ltu ral
b ias in testing has been h eated an d , in recen t years, has fre q u en tly en d e d in
c o u rt, w here tho se claim in g d isc rim in a tio n have fo u n d a sy m p a th e tic ear.
A m o n g those w ho d o n o t believe th a t bias can co m p letely a c c o u n t for
g ro u p differences in test scores, o th e r ex p la n a tio n s are p ro p o sed . V irtu ally
ev eryone agrees th a t en v iro n m e n ta l factors are im p o rta n t. T h ere are sig
nificant differences, on average, betw een vario u s g ro u p s w ith in o u r society
in such im p o rta n t areas as c h ild -re a rin g practices, n u tritio n , a n d q u ality o f
ed u c atio n . It w ould be foolish to th in k th a t these have no effect on in tellec
tu a l skills. But th e possibility has also been raised th a t genetic differences
m ay play a causal role in g ro u p differences in test score.
T h e issue o f g en etic d e te rm in a n ts , p a rtic u la rly reg a rd in g th e b la c k w h ite IQ difference, is at th e h e a rt o f th e m o d e rn IQ controversy; all o th e r
c o n c e rn s a b o u t testin g have ta k en on new significance follow ing th e fu ro r
over Je n se n ’s p o stu latio n . To claim , in a political clim a te stressing th e
fu n d a m e n ta l sim ilarity o f all groups, th a t blacks an d w hites differ g en e t
ically in any tra it o th e r th a n skin co lo r is the m o st in v id io u s o f allegations.
105
106
The IQ Controversy
P roposals by Je n sen , H e rrn ste in an d o th e rs th a t genes play a role in g ro u p
differences in test scores have n o t on ly b ro u g h t o p p ro b riu m u p o n these
a u th o rs, b u t have spaw ned rep eated a n d d etailed alleg atio n s th a t th e en tire
te stin g en terp rise is an exercise in oppression. In a n atio n sensitized by th e
civil rights m o v e m en t a n d th e plight o f m in o rities, th e su b ject o f genetic
d ifferences betw een g ro u p s has resisted ratio n al p u b lic d iscussion.
T h e literatu re on g ro u p differences in IQ is alm o st exclusively c o n c e rn e d
w ith th e b la c k -w h ite difference an d , to a lesser ex ten t, th e rela tio n sh ip
b etw een so c io eco n o m ic sta tu s (SES) an d intelligence. W hile ev id en ce ex
ists for o th e r racial a n d e th n ic gro u p differences in test scores (e.g., A sian
A m eric an s a n d Jew s te n d to have higher IQ s th a n o th e r A m erican s, w hile
P u e rto R icans an d M exican A m erican s score low er on average),1 th ey have
a ttra c te d relatively little a tte n tio n . T h e sam e is tru e o f g en d e r differences.
T h ere is no significant difference in m e an IQ betw een m en an d w om en, b u t
th e sta n d a rd d ev iatio n o f IQ is a b o u t o n e p o in t larger in m en. M en also
show a sm all b u t significant ad v an tag e o n tests o f sp a tia l-v is u a l ab ility a n d
q u a n tita tiv e reasoning, w hile w om en, past th e age o f te n o r eleven, te n d to
d o b e tte r on tests o f verbal ability.2 T h ere is also ev id en ce th a t th e b la c k w hite IQ differential is g rea ter am o n g m en th a n am o n g w o m en .3
A t th is p o in t, th e d a ta o n th e b la c k -w h ite differen tial in IQ are very
clear. R esults a c c u m u la te d over m a n y years, on m a n y different types o f
in te llig en c e a n d a p titu d e tests, in d ic a te th a t A m e ric a n b lack s average
a b o u t o n e sta n d a rd d ev iatio n (fifteen p o in ts on th e W IS C -R ) low er in IQ
th a n A m eric an w hites.4 T hese differences are u sually n o t m an ifest un til
a b o u t age th ree o r fo u r (at th e tim e th a t scores on in tellig en ce tests begin to
c o r r e la te s u b s ta n tia lly w ith a d u lt IQ ), a n d r e m a in fa irly c o n s ta n t
th ro u g h o u t th e school years.5 T h ere is som e in te ra c tio n w ith specific ab il
ities, such th a t the differential is greater for p e rfo rm a n c e th a n verbal tests,
a n d is p ro b ab ly g rea ter for m o re highly g -lo a d e d tests.6
C h ild re n ’s IQ s c o rre la te a b o u t 0.30 w ith p are n ts’ SES, as m e asu red by a
n u m b e r o f variables, in c lu d in g q u ality o f h o m e en v iro n m e n t, in c o m e, an d
o cc u p atio n al sta tu s.7 T h e c o rre la tio n o f an ind iv id u al's ad o lescen t IQ w ith
his ow n la ter o cc u p a tio n a l statu s is a b o u t 0.50, w hile c o rre la tio n w ith
in c o m e te n d s to increase th ro u g h o u t life, p eakin g betw een 0.30 a n d 0.40
a ro u n d age forty.8 T h e c o rre la tio n betw een SES an d IQ is slightly sm aller
am o n g blacks th a n am o n g w hites; th e re is a ra c e -b y -S E S in te ra c tio n in IQ,
such th a t th e racial difference is less am o n g low er so c io eco n o m ic g ro u p s.9
T h e average IQ difference betw een blacks an d w hites o f th e sam e SES (i.e.,
th e b la c k -w h ite IQ difference c o n tro llin g for SES) is ab o u t 12 p o in ts .10
It is im p o rta n t to u n d e rsta n d th e rela tio n sh ip betw een race a n d class
differences in IQ an d IQ differences betw een in d iv id u als w ith in th e sam e
racial a n d SES groups. Intelligence an d a p titu d e tests are ra th e r p o o r d is
107
c rim in a to rs o f race an d social class. R ace an d class differences rep resen t
only a sm all fractio n o f th e to tal varian ce in IQ (they have been estim ated
to a c c o u n t for on ly 22 percen t o f to tal W IS C -R v aria n ce );11 th e over
w h elm in g m a jo rity o f v ariance com es from individu al differences w ith in
racial an d SES groups. In o th e r w ords, if all A m eric an s w ere o f th e sam e
race an d SES. we w ould still see alm o st 80 p erc en t o f th e v arian ce in IQ
th a t we now see. T his fact by itself is stro n g evidence th a t intelligence tests
are p rim arily m easures o f so m e th in g o th e r th a n cu ltu re.
G ro u p differences in test score are. o f course, irre le v an t a t th e in d iv id u al
level, w here tests are used. Each racial, eth n ic, a n d so cio eco n o m ic g ro u p
c o n ta in s w ithin it in d iv id u als w ith the full range o f test scores; know ing an
in d iv id u a l’s g ro u p a ffilia tio n s p ro v id e s little in f o rm a tio n a b o u t in te l
ligence. ap titu d e , o r w h atev er it is these tests are m easu rin g . A 100 IQ for a
b lack test ta k e r m e an s th e sam e thing, on an u n b iased test, as a 100 IQ for a
w h ite test tak er; we need n o t be c o n c e rn e d w ith race in using these test
scores. N onetheless, as in d iv id u al decisions a c cu m u late, th e average score
differences betw een g roups have a p ro fo u n d effect o n th e rep rese n tatio n o f
these g roups in c e rta in key positions. B ecause scores on m o st intelligence
a n d a p titu d e tests are ap p ro x im ate ly n o rm ally d istrib u te d , a o n e -s ta n d a rd
d ev iatio n score differential, like th a t betw een blacks an d w hites, becom es
p a rtic u la rly o b vious at the tails o f th e d istrib u tio n , w here m o st selection
d ecisions are m ade. F or exam ple, th e p ercentage o f blacks w ith IQ s b e
tw een 50 an d 70 (a c o m m o n criterio n for E M R p la ce m en t) is m o re th a n
six tim es greater th a n th e percen tag e o f w hites, w hile w hites are over ten
tim es m o re likely to have IQs above 130 o r t o score 650 o r b e tte r (on a scale
o f 800) on the verbal p o rtio n o f th e S cholastic A p titu d e Test. G ro u p dif
ferences in test score are o f co n c ern n o t only because people d o n o t like to
be called stu p id ; these d ifferentials have im p o rta n t effects on ed u c atio n al
a n d o cc u p atio n al o p p o rtu n itie s.
Bias in Intelligence and Aptitude Testing
T h e o p era tio n alist d ic tu m th a t intelligence is w h atev er intelligence tests
m easu re n o tw ith stan d in g , gro u p differences in intelligence test scores are
n o t necessarily th e sam e as differences in intelligence. T h ere are several
w ays in w h ic h a te s t m ay be b ia se d a g a in s t a c e r ta in ra c ia l o r s o
cio ec o n o m ic group, a n d th u s p ro d u ce differences in te st scores in d e p e n
d e n t o f an y differences in th e ability th e test is a tte m p tin g to m easu re. We
shall ex a m in e th e m o re im p o rta n t o f these. F irst, however, it is cru cial to
u n d e rsta n d w h at c u ltu ra l bias is not a n d to distin g u ish betw een cu ltu ral
d isad v an tag e, c u ltu re specificity, an d cu ltu ral bias.
H u m a n beings possess a m u ltitu d e o f a p titu d e s a n d abilities. T h e im p o r
108
The IQ Controversy
ta n c e placed on these skills will vary across co n tex ts, as will th e labels w ith
w hich they are described. T h e graffiti seen as th e m a lic io u s d e stru c tio n o f
pu b lic p ro p erty on th e N ew Y ork C ity subw ays m ay be viewed as a rt in th e
galleries o f S oH o. So it is, in so m e sense, w ith intelligence. T h o se b eh av io rs
th a t are labeled “ in te llig en t” o r “ in te lle c tu a l” will v ary acro ss cu ltu res, an d
across situ a tio n s w ithin a cu ltu re. T h e intelligence th a t sta n d a rd in te l
ligence tests m easu re consists p rim a rily o f th o se skills n ecessary to success
in school in an in d u stria liz ed society: linguistic, lo g ic a l-m a th e m a tic a l, an d
spatial abilities. T h is d efin itio n o f intelligence is to a large degree cu ltu rally
relative. M ost o f us live in a cu ltu re in w hich g reat im p o rta n c e is p laced on
th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f linguistic, lo g ic a l-m a th e m a tic a l, a n d spatial skills, o n e
in w hich these skills fo rm th e core o f o u r c o m m o n -s e n s e n o tio n o f in te l
ligence.
To say th a t intelligence is a cu ltu rally relative c o n c ep t is n o t to say th a t it
is c u ltu re b o u n d , o r th a t th ese skills are only o f im p o rta n c e in a very
lim ite d co n tex t. O n th e contrary , it is h a rd to im ag in e an y d efin itio n o f
intelligence th a t d id n o t in c lu d e a t least so m e proficiency in c o m m u n ic a
tio n a n d logical th o u g h t, regardless o f th e cu ltu re p ro v id in g th e d efin itio n .
Sim ilarly, th e possession o f these “ in te lle c tu a l” skills co n fers a d istin ct
ad v a n ta g e in co n tex ts o th e r th a n schools, m o st notably, o n th e jo b . N o n e
theless, th e re are n u m e ro u s o th e r a ttrib u te s, such as creativity, m usical
ap titu d e , a n d in te rp erso n al sensitivity th a t are o f g reat im p o rta n c e in o u r
cu ltu re, an d m ay be o f even g rea ter im p o rta n c e in o th ers, th a t are n o t
m e asu red to an y significant degree by intelligence tests. In telligence is th u s
a c o n c e p t th a t c o n ta in s c e rta in u n iv e rsa lly rec o g n ized a ttrib u te s , a n d
m a n y th a t are relative to th e c u ltu re in w hich in telligence is defined.
W ith th is d efin itio n in h a n d , we can u n d e rsta n d th e d istin c tio n betw een
c u ltu ra l d isad v an tag e a n d c u ltu ra l bias. If an in d iv id u al is raised in a su b
cu ltu re in w hich em p h asis is placed o n th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f skills an d
abilities o th e r th a n tho se stressed by th e d o m in a n t c u ltu re o f th e society,
th a t in d iv id u al m ay be at a d isad v an tag e relative to m e m b ers o f th e d o m i
n a n t cu ltu re on a test o f th o se skills a n d abilities for w hich he w as n o t
a d e q u ately p rep a re d . In o th e r w ords, he m ay a c tu a lly possess less o f th o se
skills an d abilities by v irtu e o f th e su b c u ltu re in w h ich he w as raised. If th e
test in q u estio n is ac cu rately m easu rin g th e rele v an t skills a n d ab ilities it
p u rp o rts to m easure, no m a tte r how cu ltu rally d e te rm in e d th o se ab ilities
m ig h t be, th e n o u r h y p o th e tic al in d iv id u al is at a cu ltu ra l d isa d va n ta g e
w hen it com es to p erfo rm a n c e on th e test. O n e m ay arg u e a b o u t th e fair
ness o f a situ a tio n in w hich an in d iv id u al is re q u ire d to d e m o n stra te skills
for w hich he w as in a d eq u a tely p rep a re d , b u t th e fact rem a in s th a t th e
in d iv id u al in th is ex am p le ac tu a lly possesses less o f th o se skills a n d ab ilities
th e test is m easu rin g . A test m ay on ly be co n sid ered cu ltu ra lly b ia se d if it
109
does n o t accu rately m e asu re w h at it a tte m p ts to m easu re, such th a t m e m
bers o f c e rta in c u ltu res score differently th a n m e m b ers o f o th e r cu ltu res,
d esp ite the fa c t th a t m em b ers o f th ese cultures possess th e relevant skills
a n d a bilities to th e sa m e extent.
As an exam ple, let us co n sid er th e yardstick as a m easu re o f height. It is
well k now n th a t th e c o n s u m p tio n o f c e rta in n u trie n ts d u rin g ch ild h o o d
can have a p ro fo u n d influence o n physical sta tu re. Im ag in e tw o cu ltu res
th a t differ in th e degree to w hich these n u trie n ts fo rm a p a rt o f th e ir reg u lar
d iet, such th a t cu ltu re A suffers a severe sh o rtag e relative to cu ltu re B. All
o th e r th in g s being eq u al, m e m b ers o f c u ltu re A will, o n th e average, be
sh o rte r th a n m e m b ers o f cu ltu re B. A ssum ing we have a y ard stick th a t is an
a c cu rate m easu re o f height, m em b ers o f cu ltu re A will be a t a cu ltu ral
d isad v an tag e relative to m e m b ers o f cu ltu re B w hen it co m es to “ p erfo r
m a n c e ” on th e yardstick. T h e y ardstick is n o t, however, cu ltu rally biased,
as it ac cu rately m easu res height in b o th groups. If, on th e o th e r h a n d , we
h a d a yardstick th a t system atically ex p a n d ed o r c o n tra c te d d e p e n d in g on
th e cu ltu ral m e m b ersh ip o f th e perso n being m e asu red , we w o u ld say th a t
th e y ardstick w as cu ltu rally biased. Such a co n c lu sio n presu p p o ses, o f
co u rse , th a t we have o th e r in d e p e n d e n t c rite ria by w h ich to m e asu re
height.
A p plying o u r ex a m p le to intelligence an d a p titu d e tests, m em b ers o f
ce rta in g roups m ay p e rfo rm poorly on these tests because th e ir c u ltu ral
b ack g ro u n d s have p rev e n ted th e m from ad eq u ately d ev elo p in g th o se skills
a n d abilities th a t th e tests are accu rately m easuring . (W h e th e r c e rta in ra
cial, eth n ic, a n d class g roups actu ally rep rese n t sep arate cu ltu res o r su b
cu ltu res is irre le v an t, as long as these g roups differ experientially, on aver
age, in im p o rta n t ways.) T hese in d iv id u als are cu ltu rally d isad v an tag ed . It
is also possible th a t these in d iv id u als are p e rfo rm in g poorly, d esp ite th e fact
th a t they possess an ab u n d a n c e o f th e a p p ro p ria te skills, because th e test
score is influenced by cu ltu ral factors o th e r th a n th o se rele v an t to in te l
ligence. Such a test is cu ltu rally biased. O n e way to d istin g u ish betw een
th ese possibilities, a n d d e te rm in e th a t cu ltu ral differences in test score
reflect bias, is to co m p are p e rfo rm a n c e on th e test to so m e o th e r criteria o f
intelligence. If th e g roups in q u estio n d o n o t differ to th e sam e degree on
th ese e x tern al criteria as they d o o n the test, th e re is reaso n to believe th e
te st is biased. Such e x tern al v alid atio n is critically im p o rta n t, for it m ay be
arg u ed th a t th e c o n c ep t o f intelligence being m e asu red by intelligence tests
is so cu ltu rally d e te rm in e d as to b ea r little o r n o rela tio n to an y m ean in g fu l
n o tio n o f intelligence. If o n e w ere to co n stru c t a test o f “ in tellig en ce” th a t
co n sisted o f n o th in g b u t q u estio n s a b o u t po lo an d yachting, c e rta in m e m
bers o f th e u p p e r classes u n d o u b te d ly w ould test as m o st in telligent. But
such a test w ould be a cu ltu rally biased m easu re o f intelligence because
110
The IQ Controversy
p e rfo rm a n c e on th e test w ould c o rre la te po o rly w ith o th e r in d ic a to rs o f
in tellectu al ability, such as school p e rfo rm a n c e a n d p ee r intelligence r a t
ings. T h e test w ould not, however, be a biased m easu re o f p o lo a n d y ach tin g
know ledge; m em b ers o f low er so c io ec o n o m ic classes w ould m erely be a t a
c u ltu ral disad v an tag e. T h e p o in t o f th is d iscu ssio n is th a t c u ltu ra l in flu
ences on test p e rfo rm a n c e are inevitable, an d d o n o t necessarily rep rese n t
te st bias.
A p ro p o s o f c u ltu ra l influence is the q u estio n o f c u ltu ral specificity (or
c u ltu ra l loading) o f intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests. Tests vary in th e degree
to w hich p e rfo rm a n c e req u ires c u ltu re -sp e c ific know ledge. Je n sen gives
th e ex am p le o f a test o f m e n ta l ability w ith q u e stio n s draw n fro m a p a r
tic u la r fam ily ’s p riv a te e x p e rien c es th a t m ig h t be h ighly v alid in d is
tin g u is h in g th e in te llig e n c e o f sib lin g s in th e fa m ily b u t w o u ld y ield
ra n d o m scores for all o th e rs ta k in g th e test. A t th e o th e r ex trem e, Je n sen
proposes a test o f m e ch an ical p ro b lem solving th a t m ig h t be able to r a n k
o rd e r som e im p o rta n t aspects o f m e n tal ability in all p rim a te s.'2 T h u s, on e
m ay speak o f a C o n tin u u m o f C u ltu ra l Specificity a m o n g tests, an alo g o u s
to A n astasi’s C o n tin u u m o f E x p erien tial Specificity.
E x am in in g tests actually in use, a t th e c u ltu re -sp e c ific en d are th o se like
th e P eabody P ictu re V ocabulary Test (P P V T ), w hich co n sists o f a series o f
pic tu res rep resen tin g vario u s n o u n s, geru n d s, a n d m odifiers. Test ta k ers
are to answ er yes o r n o as to w h eth e r a w ord p rese n ted c o rre sp o n d s to a
given p ic tu re o r series o f pictures. T h e test has a high degree o f validity
w ith in th e U n ite d States, b u t because item difficulty is d e te rm in e d by th e
rarity o f w ords in A m eric an E nglish th e test is o f little use o u tsid e th e
U n ite d S tate s.13 A t th e c u ltu re -n o n sp e c ific o r c u ltu re -fa ir en d o f th e c o n
tin u u m are n o n lan g u ag e tests like th e R avens Progressive M atrices, co n sis
tin g o f a b stra c t se rie s-c o m p le tio n prob lem s, w hich has been v alid ated in
do zen s o f cu ltu res a ro u n d th e w o rld .14
Even less cu ltu re specific, b u t m o re controversial, th a n th e R avens are
tests o f choice rea ctio n tim e, in w hich th e te st ta k e r has o n ly to rem o v e h er
finger from a b u tto n w hen o n e o f a series o f lights is illu m in a ted . T h e speed
w ith w hich th e finger is rem oved from th e b u tto n , rea ctio n tim e, has been
fo u n d to co rrela te significantly w ith scores on tra d itio n a l intelligence tests
a n d to display significant racial d ifferences.15 It sh o u ld be n o te d th a t w ork
o n so p h isticated reactio n tim e m easures o f in telligence is in its earliest
stages, an d is n o t w ith o u t its c ritic s.16
Tests at b o th en d s o f th e c o n tin u u m , a n d a t every p o in t in betw een, show
significant race a n d class differences in test sc o re .17 T h ere have been, over
the years, n u m e ro u s a tte m p ts to develop c u ltu re -fa ir tests th a t d o n o t
p ro d u ce g ro u p differences. T h u s far, no test th a t show s eq u iv ale n t scores
across racial an d so c io eco n o m ic g roups has been d e m o n stra te d to be a
111
valid m easure o f in te llig en c e.18 T hese tests do n o t c o rre la te sufficiently
w ith o th e r criteria o f in tellectu al ability to be o f an y p ractical use.
C u ltu ra l load in g is n o t th e sam e as c u ltu ral bias. A test is cu ltu rally
biased o nly w hen the cu ltu re-sp ec ific know ledge it tests is n o t equally
available to all test ta k ers a n d th a t know ledge is n o t relev an t to th e p erfo r
m an ce criteria (e.g., success in school) against w hich th e test is v alid ated . In
th e U n ite d States, th e P P V T has been validated for b o th b lack a n d w hite
te st ta k e rs. (N o n e th e le ss , m a n y o f te s tin g ’s stro n g e s t s u p p o rte rs , like
Je n sen , have called for th e d isc o n tin u a tio n o f th e P P V T a n d o th e r v o ca b u
lary tests th a t rely on th e rarity o f item s p resen ted to d istin g u ish betw een
test takers, precisely because o f th e ex trem e c u ltu ra l specificity o f these
tests.) T h is ind icates th a t blacks a n d w hites te n d to have e q u iv ale n t p rio r
ex p o su re to the item s tested. T h u s, a test can be highly cu ltu re specific an d
still be valid in th e cu ltu re in w hich it w as developed (like Je n se n ’s w ith in fam ily test).19 T h e P P V T is n o t valid in m o st o th e r cu ltu res, however, a n d is
th erefo re a biased m easu re o f ability in tho se societies. T h e R avens is valid
in m o st cu ltu res a ro u n d th e w orld, an d p red icts success in schools a n d on
th e jo b ju s t as well for black as for w hite A m ericans, a n d for m e m b ers o f all
social classes. T h e arg u m e n t is m a d e th a t tests like th e R avens are biased,
d esp ite th e ir n o n lan g u ag e c o n te n t, because b lack ch ild ren , as a resu lt o f
in ferio r schooling a n d different c u ltu ral practices, have less ex p o su re to th e
k in d s o f ab stra ct p ro b le m -so lv in g tasks th a t these tests req u ire. T h ere is a
good ch a n ce th a t th e claim a b o u t schooling a n d cu ltu re is tru e. Even so, it
is n o t an in d ic atio n th a t th e tests are biased, b u t ra th e r th a t black s are a t a
c u ltu ra l disadvantage. In th is cu ltu re a b stra c t p ro b lem solving is a relev an t
d im e n sio n o f intelligence, a n d th o se w ho ex p erien ce in ferio r e d u c atio n
will actu ally display few er o f these abilities.
W ith these caveats in m in d , we now tu r n to so m e o f th e m o re co m m o n
d efin itio n s o f test b ias.20
B ia s as m ea n differences. T h is is really an im p ro p e r d efin itio n , since by
ta k in g th e existence o f g ro u p differences as p rim a facie ev id en ce o f bias on e
begs the q u estio n . Such a d efin itio n assum es th a t in te lle ctu al ab ility is
eq u ally d istrib u te d am o n g all races a n d classes, b u t th is is precisely w hat
in telligence tests given to d ifferent g roups are try in g to m easu re. As n o ted ,
no test th a t show s eq u al average scores for different SES o r ra c ia l-e th n ic
g ro u p s has been show n to have an y useful pred ictiv e validity. G iv en th e
large en v iro n m e n ta l differences betw een racial a n d e c o n o m ic g ro u p s in
th is co u n try , it w ould be su rp risin g if th e re were not m e an differences in IQ
betw een groups.
B ias as im proper sta n d a rd iza tio n . A n o th e r freq u en tly m e n tio n e d , b u t
eq u ally in a d e q u a te c o n c ep t o f bias is im p ro p e r test sta n d a rd iz a tio n . It is
o ften claim ed th a t tests th a t show a b la c k -w h ite difference w ere s ta n d a rd
112
The IQ Controversy
ized on ly o n a w hite p o p u la tio n a n d are th e re fo re biased ag ain st blacks.
Tests like th e W IS C -R a n d S ta n fo rd -B in e t are scaled so th a t th e average
score in th e p o p u la tio n will be 100, w ith a sta n d a rd d ev iatio n o f 15 (W IS C R) o r 16 (S-B ). Scaling is ac co m p lish e d by giving th e test to a large sam p le
chosen to be rep rese n tativ e o f th e p o p u la tio n as a w hole. It is tru e th a t early
sta n d a rd iz a tio n sam ples o f th e S ta n fo rd -B in e t d id n o t in clu d e black s a n d
o th e r m in o ritie s (it is n o t tru e o f m o re recen t sta n d a rd iz a tio n sam p les, n o r
o f a n y o th e r m o d e rn intelligence o r a p titu d e test). T h a t blacks a n d o th e r
m in o rity g roups were n o t in c lu d ed in th ese sam p les evinces an in sen sitiv ity
o n th e p a rt o f early te st developers, if n o t o u trig h t racism . B u t it has
n o th in g to d o w ith th e q u e stio n o f w h eth e r th e tests are biased. As a case in
p o in t, early intelligence tests w ere n o t p ro p erly sta n d ard iz ed for A sian
A m erican s, yet m em b ers o f th is g ro u p have generally scored h ig h er th a n
w hite A m erican s. U sing a sta n d a rd iz a tio n criteria for bias, o n e w o u ld have
to argue th a t intelligence tests are biased in favor o f A sian A m erican s, an d
th e re fo re against w hite A m erican s, for w h o m th e te st p resu m a b ly w as d e
veloped.
T h e fact is th a t sta n d a rd iz a tio n an d re sta n d a rd iz a tio n , by them selves,
have no influence on g ro u p differences in test score o r th e ir causes. If
blacks, o r a n y o th e r group, score o n th e average x p o in ts low er (o r higher)
th a n w hites, w h eth e r because th e te st is biased, o r fo r m o re leg itim ate
reasons, o n a test sta n d ard iz ed o n an a ll-w h ite p o p u la tio n , th ey will still
score jv p o in ts low er (o r higher) o n a test sta n d a rd iz e d o n a m o re rep rese n
ta tiv e p o p u la tio n . M erely resta n d ard iz in g a test, w ith o u t actu ally ch an g in g
an y q u estio n s, will lead to a change in absolu te, b u t n o t relativ e scores
betw een groups, an d will provide no new in fo rm a tio n as to th e reaso n for
g ro u p differences in average score.
12. In y o u r opinion, is th e fa c t th a t an intelligence test h a s n ot been
p rop erly sta n d a rd ize d fo r a certain group, b y its e lf su fficien t evidence th a t
th e test is b ia se d a gainst th a t group?
T h is q u estio n , like n u m b e r 5, w as in c lu d ed n o t so m u c h for its h eu ristic
value, b u t as a d irec t resp o n se to p o p u la r criticism . P ro b ab ly m o re th a n
an y o th e r q u e stio n in th e survey, th e answ er here is a m a tte r o f fact ra th e r
th a n o p in io n . It is difficult to im agine w h at test bias co u ld m e an if it is
in d icated sim ply because a c e rta in g ro u p w as n o t in c lu d ed in p ro p e r p ro
p o rtio n in th e sta n d a rd iz a tio n sam ple, since sta n d a rd iz a tio n itself has no
effect on th e c o n te n t o f th e test. N onetheless, o n e o ften reads th a t in te l
ligence te sts like th e S ta n fo rd -B in e t are b iased a g a in st b lack s b ecau se
blacks w ere n o t p ro p erly rep rese n ted in th e sta n d a rd iz a tio n sam ple. N ee d
less to say, ex p e rts disagreed. S e v e n ty -o n e p erc en t in d ic ate th a t im p ro p e r
sta n d a rd iz a tio n is n o t sufficient evidence o f test bias, w hile 12 p e rc e n t do
113
n o t resp o n d to th e q u estio n . W h a t is very su rp risin g is th a t th e rem a in in g
17 p erc en t feel th a t im p ro p e r sta n d a rd iz a tio n is sufficient ev id en ce o f test
bias. It is possible th a t these re sp o n d e n ts in te rp re t “ im p ro p e r sta n d a rd iz a
tio n ” to m ean so m e th in g m o re radical th a n u n d e rre p re s e n ta tio n in th e
sta n d a rd iz a tio n sam p le, th o u g h it is u n clea r w hat th is m ig h t be.
B ia s as content. Tests are often th o u g h t to be cu ltu rally biased because
m a n y o f th e q u estio n s p resu p p o se o r test know ledge th a t is m o re co m m o n
to c e rta in cu ltu ral groups, p articu la rly m id d le - an d u p p e r-c la ss w hites.
E x am ples are given o f p a rtic u la r test item s involving o b jects an d co n cep ts
su p p o sedly m ore c o m m o n am o n g th e m id d le a n d u p p er classes, like p o t
te ry an d pacifism , o r th a t ask for aesth etic ju d g m e n ts b ased o n an A nglo
S axon c o n c ep tio n o f beauty. T h u s w h at is being tested , it is claim ed , is n o t
intelligence b u t c u ltu ral fam iliarity.
In tu itio n ap p lied to specific te st item s, w hile ap p ealin g as a rh eto rical
device, does n o t c o n stitu te a leg itim ate c riterio n for test bias. O n e o f th e
m o st fre q u en tly cited o f the supposedly biased q u estio n s, ta k en from th e
W ISC , is o n e in w hich ch ild ren are asked w h at th ey w ould d o if stru ck by a
sm a lle r child o f th e sam e sex. S triking th e child back is co n sid ered an
in c o rre c t answer. O n its face, th e q u estio n seem s highly c u ltu re lo ad ed an d
cu ltu re biased. Black ch ild ren m iss this q u estio n far m o re o ften th a n do
w h ite ch ild ren , an d it is argued th a t re ta lia tio n m ay be an ad a p tiv e an d
th erefo re “ in te llig en t” response for a gh etto child. R a th e r th a n being suffi
cien t evidence o f racial bias in th e test, however, p o o rer black p erfo rm an ce
o n th is q u estio n is to be expected, given th e low er overall average score o f
b lack ch ild ren , regardless o f w h eth e r th e difference is a resu lt o f bias. T h e
a p p ro p ria te criterio n for ra c ia l-c o n te n t bias involves a co m p ariso n o f item
difficulty across all item s betw een black an d w hite ch ild ren . G iven th a t
black ch ild ren score low er overall, th e im p o rta n t q u es tio n b ecom es, is th e
relative difficulty o f item s significantly d ifferent for black an d w hite ch il
d ren . In o th e r w ords, is th e r a n k -o rd e rin g o f item difficulty a m o n g black
ch ild ren different from th e ra n k -o rd e rin g am o n g w h ite ch ild ren , in d ic a t
ing th a t c e rta in item s are p a rtic u la rly easier o r m o re difficult for m em b ers
o f a given race. C u ltu ra lly biased item s sho u ld be m o re difficult th a n o th e r
item s for m e m b ers o f g ro u p s o u tsid e th e tested cu ltu re. In analysis o f
v arian ce te rm s, th e re sho u ld be a significant ra c e -b y -ite m in te ra c tio n on
test scores. (Such an in te ra c tio n is a necessary, b u t n o t sufficient, criterio n
for c o n te n t bias, as th e re m ay be o th e r reasons th a t black te st ta k ers do
relatively w orse on som e item s.)
A t present, th e re is little o r no evidence o f such in te ra c tio n in stu d ies o f
th e m o st c o m m o n ly used intelligence an d a p titu d e tests.21 Item difficulty
levels c o rrela te betw een 0.95 a n d 0.98 betw een black an d w h ite test ta k ers
on th ese tests, in d ic atin g nearly identical relative difficulty.
114
The IQ Controversy
In o rd e r to argue, in th e face o f such evidence, th a t significant racial
c o n te n t bias exists, o n e m u st m a in ta in th a t v irtu ally every item o n a test
like th e W 1S C -R o r S ta n fo rd -B in e t is equally biased. T h is p o sitio n was
ta k en by tw o w itnesses fo r th e plaintiffs in th e L a rry P. case. Dr. Asa
H illiard, o n e o f th e psychologists w ho retested th e p la in tiff ch ild ren , an d
Dr. Ja n e M ercer, a professor o f sociology at th e U n iv ersity o f C a lifo rn ia at
R iverside. T h e ir arg u m e n ts c e n te r a ro u n d th e ex istence o f n o n sta n d a rd
E nglish in th e black cu ltu re a n d th a t black ch ild ren are eq u ally disp laced
from all aspects o f w hite cu ltu re. We leave it to th e rea d er to d ecide w h eth e r
it is rea so n ab le to believe th a t every item o f a test in c lu d in g sectio n s on
vocabulary, general co m p re h en sio n , block design, a n d p ic tu re co m p letio n
is eq u ally biased against A m eric an blacks.
M oreover, b etw e e n -g ro u p co m p a riso n s o f specific ite m s in d e p e n d e n tly
ju d g e d to be m o st cu ltu rally loaded show th a t b lack subjects do n o worse
o n these q u estio n s, c o m p a re d to m id d le -c la ss w hites, th a n on an y o th e rs.22
(Ironically, th e “ fight” q u e stio n cited above is o n e o n w hich th e b la c k w hite p e rfo rm a n c e difference is sm allest.23 R em o v in g th is q u e stio n from
th e test w ould actu ally p en alize black test tak ers.) O verall, blacks seem to
d o so m e w h at w orse c o m p ared to w hites o n n o n v erb a l (th o se req u irin g o nly
th e m a n ip u la tio n o f n o n lin g u istic sym bols an d objects) th a n o n verbal
intelligence tests.24 If c u ltu ral bias is to creep in to a test, it p resu m ab ly h as a
b e tte r o p p o rtu n ity to d o so th ro u g h language th a n th ro u g h a b stra c t sy m
bols, yet blacks d o b e tte r o n language tests.
A n o th e r m e asu re o f c o n te n t bias involves facto r an aly sis o f v ario u s in te l
ligence a n d a p titu d e tests. If fa c to r-a n a ly tic so lu tio n s differ betw een black
an d w hite test takers, it m ay be supposed th a t th ese tests are m easu rin g
different en titie s in th e tw o g roups (see C h a p te r 2 for a d iscu ssio n o f facto r
analysis), a n d th erefo re are n o t eq u ally valid m easu res o f intelligence for
blacks an d w hites. O n ce again, th e em p irica l literatu re reveals n o such
differences in fa c to r-a n a ly tic so lu tio n s.25
D espite th e evidence, a n d th e existence o f n u m e ro u s ex p la n a tio n s o f th e
im p ro p rie ty o f th e ite m - b y - ite m m e th o d o f ju d g in g c o n te n t bias, th e
piecem eal ap p ro a ch has been given th e force o f law. In 1976, th e G o ld en
R u le In su ra n c e C o m p a n y o f L aw renceville, Illin o is, s u p p o rte d by th e
N A A C P a n d R a lp h N ader, b ro u g h t suit again st th e E d u ca tio n a l Testing
Service (ET S) a n d th e S tate o f Illinois, ch arging th a t th e Illinois In su ra n ce
A gent L icensing Test u n fairly d isc rim in a te d ag ain st blacks becau se th e
failure rate for blacks was higher th a n for w hites. A fter eight years, in
N o v em b er 1984, th e d e fe n d a n ts agreed to en d th e su it by a d o p tin g w hat
has co m e to be called th e “G o ld en R u le ” p ro ce d u re in o rd er to m a k e th e
test fairer. T h is p ro ce d u re req u ires th a t th e E TS rep lace all test item s on
w hich black a n d w hite test tak ers differ in percen tag e co rrec t by item s
115
m easu rin g th e sam e c o n te n t, b u t o n w hich blacks a n d w hites differ least in
p erfo rm an ce . We have ex p lain ed w hy such a p ro ce d u re is n o t a p ro p er
m easu re o f c o n te n t bias. C onsider, th erefo re, th e very real possibility th a t a
test subjected to the G o ld en R ule p ro ce d u re is in fact n o t c o n te n t biased.
T h is im plies th a t all valid test q u estio n s show a p p ro x im ate ly th e sam e
b la c k -w h ite d ifferential, an d th a t black test ta k ers d o possess, on average,
less o f th e skills o r know ledge m easu red by th e test. T h e in e v ita b le resu lt o f
rep lacin g q u estio n s from such a test w ith th o se th a t show a sm aller dif
feren tial is to m ake the test less valid as a p re d ic to r o f jo b p erfo rm an ce .
13. R a c ia l content bias m a y be d efin ed as eith er race b y ite m interaction
in test scores, or different fa c to r a n a ly tic so lu tio n s betw een b la ck a n d
w hite test takers. A ccording to eith er definition, how m u ch racial content
bias do yo u believe there is in th e m o st c o m m o n ly u sed intelligence a n d
a p titu d e tests?
R atings w ere m ad e on a 4 - p o in t scale, w here 1 was d escrib ed as “An
insignificant a m o u n t o f c o n te n t b ia s,” 2 w as “ S om e c o n te n t b ia s,” 3 was “A
m o d e ra te a m o u n t o f c o n te n t b ias,” an d 4 was “A large a m o u n t o f c o n te n t
b ia s.” T h e m e a n r a tin g re c e iv e d fro m e x p e r t r e s p o n d e n ts is 2.13
(s.d. = .802, r.r. = 79%). T h is result in d icates th a t, on average, ex p e rts b e
lieve th ere is a significant a m o u n t o f racial c o n te n t bias in intelligence tests,
th o u g h less th a n w h at w ould be co n sid ered a m o d e ra te a m o u n t.
It is surprising, in light o f o u r review o f th e em p irica l literatu re , th a t
m o st ex p e rts th in k racial c o n te n t bias is significant. We w ere sim ilarly
su rp rised by th e results o f th e o th e r bias q u estio n s. T h e en d o f th is c h a p te r
a n d o f th e next c o n ta in s a d iscussion o f th e rela tio n sh ip o f d em o g ra p h ic
a n d b ac k g ro u n d variables to su b stan tiv e q u e stio n resp o n d in g . As th e m ost
p o litically sensitive q u e stio n s in th e survey, tho se d ealin g w ith race an d
class differences in IQ are also tho se m o st related to facto rs o th e r th a n
re sp o n d e n ts’ expertise, in p articu la r, b elief in equ ality o f o u tc o m e in the
ec o n o m ic realm .
B ias as differen tia l va lidity/prediction. A test show s differential validity
if scores for m em b ers o f o n e gro u p pred ict p e rfo rm a n c e o n so m e criterio n ,
for ex am p le school grades, less well th a n d o scores for m e m b ers o f a n o th e r
group. If IQ is fo u n d to co rrela te m o re p oorly w ith school g rades for blacks
th a n for w hites, th e fifteen p o in t (on th e W echsler tests) b la c k -w h ite IQ
differential w ould n o t necessarily m ean the sam e th in g , in te rm s o f test
ta k ers’ abilities to succeed in school, as an eq u iv ale n t IQ difference w ith in
th e w hite p o p u la tio n . IQ tests in th is case are biased ag ain st blacks, in th e
sense th a t black IQs are less m eaningful th a n w hite IQs. Such bias m ay be
116
The IQ Controversy
ch eck ed by co m p a rin g validity coefficients (c o rre la tio n coefficient betw een
te st scores a n d criterio n p erfo rm an ce ) betw een groups.
Technically, a d iscrep an cy in validity coefficients is all th a t is m e a n t by
differential validity. H ow ever, th e validity coefficient o nly m easu res th e
stren g th o f th e rela tio n sh ip betw een te st score an d c riterio n p erfo rm an ce .
A test th a t exhib its differential validity m ay still be useful, even for a g ro u p
w hose scores are less p redictive, if validity coefficients rem a in high c o m
pared to o th e r pred ictiv e m easures. F or exam p le, if an a p titu d e test is
fo u n d to co rre la te 0.50 w ith jo b p erfo rm a n c e for w h ite ap p lica n ts, b u t o nly
0.4 0 for black ap p lica n ts, an em p lo y er m ig h t still w a n t to use th e test for all
jo b ap p lic a n ts if in c lu d in g test scores alo n g w ith o th e r criteria p ro v id es
b e tte r p red ic tio n o f jo b p erfo rm an ce , even for b lack ap p lica n ts, th a n does
th e use o f th e o th e r criteria alone.
A co m p lete te st o f bias m u st look for eq u a lity o f p red ic tio n , n o t ju s t
validity. In fact, a test m ay ex h ib it n o differential validity, b u t ev idence
differential p red ic tio n , a n d th erefo re be biased. A n IQ test th a t has th e
sam e validity coefficient for school g rades for b o th blacks an d w h ites p re
dicts grades eq u ally as accu rately for each group. If, however, an e q u iv ale n t
score on th is test p red icts a higher grade p o in t average (GPA ) for b lack test
ta k ers th a n for w hites, th e test u n d e rp re d ic ts b lack p e rfo rm a n c e relativ e to
th a t o f w hites. T h e test is biased against blacks b ecau se blacks w ith low er
scores are likely to achieve G PA s e q u iv ale n t to th o se o f w hites w ith h igher
scores. It is said th a t low er scores by blacks a n d H isp a n ics on m a n y jo b
tests reflect bias in th e tests (differential predictio n ), becau se b lack s an d
H isp an ics will p erfo rm ju s t as well o n th e jo b as w h ites w ith h ig h er average
scores.
T h e rela tio n sh ip betw een test scores an d som e c riterio n o f p e rfo rm a n c e
m ay be rep rese n ted by a se p arate regression e q u a tio n for each g ro u p (ra
cial, eth n ic, class, etc.) ta k in g th e test. D ifferential v alidity c o n c e rn s only
differences in th e co rre la tio n coefficient betw een gro u p s. D ifferential p re
d ic tio n involves all th ree elem e n ts o f th e e q u a tio n rela tin g c riterio n p erfo r
m a n c e to test score for each group: slope, in te rcep t, a n d sta n d a rd e r r o r o f
e stim ate. W h en a single regression e q u a tio n is used (e.g., a single cu to ff
score is used for all ap p lica n ts for som e jo b o r school) in a case w here
regression eq u a tio n s differ betw een groups, th e te st (or, m o re correctly, its
use in th is case) will be biased e ith e r in favor o f o n e g ro u p (if th e e q u a tio n
used is th a t for th e g ro u p w hose scores p red ic t h ig h er p erfo rm an ce ), against
th e o th e r (if th e o th e r regression e q u a tio n is used), o r b o th (if, as is m o st
likely, an average e q u a tio n fo r all test ta k ers is used).
T h ere have been, in th e last tw en ty years, scores o f stu d ies ex a m in in g
differential validity a n d differential p re d ic tio n in a v ariety o f in telligence
an d a p titu d e tests p rim a rily dealin g w ith th e b la c k -w h ite difference, b u t
117
in volving SES an d several o th e r g ro u p c o m p ariso n s as well. T hese d a ta
have been extensively review ed by A rth u r Jen sen in his b o o k B ia s in M e n
ia l T esting by R o b e rt L inn, as p a rt o f a N atio n al A cad em y o f Sciences
stu d y o f ability testing, a n d by Jo h n H u n te r an d his colleagues (b la c k w h ite differences in em p lo y m e n t testing only). T hese a u th o rs reach vir
tu ally iden tical co nclusions. T h e results o f differential validity stu d ies vary
across tests an d criteria, b u t in m o st cases show no ev idence o f bias. IQ
tests have co m p arab le validity for black an d w hite test ta k ers in th e p re d ic
tio n o f elem e n ta ry school grades. T h e co rrela tio n betw een SAT scores a n d
fresh m an grades in college is slightly higher for w hites th a n for blacks or
H isp anics, b u t th e re is no d isp a rity betw een g roups differing o nly in SES.
Scores on th e A rm ed Services V ocational A p titu d e B attery co rrela te m o re
highly w ith final grades in A ir Force te ch n ic al tra in in g school for w hites
th a n for blacks. In co n tra st, th e re is little in d ic atio n o f differential validity
in stu d ies o f p e rfo rm a n c e in g rad u a te a n d professio n al schools an d in
e m p lo y m e n t testing.
T h e results o f stud ies o f differential p re d ic tio n are m o re co n sisten t; th e
vast m a jo rity reveal no significant differences betw een blacks a n d w hites in
an y o f th e m o st w idely used intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests from elem e n
ta ry school th ro u g h th e w orkplace. W hen a difference is fo u n d , it is alm o st
always in the in te rc e p t o f th e regression line, w ith th e black in te rcep t below
th e w hite. Such a difference im plies th a t th e use o f th e w h ite o r to ta l g ro u p
regression e q u a tio n o n th e black p o p u la tio n will resu lt in o v erprediction o f
black p erfo rm an ce . In o th e r w ords, these tests are biased in favor o f blacks.
Sim ilarly, the few stu d ies th a t show differential p red ic tio n acro ss SES reveal
th a t tests overp red ict th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f low -S E S test ta k ers.26
14. O n th e whole, to w hat ex ten t do yo u believe th e m o st c o m m o n ly u sed
in telligence tests are b ia se d a gainst A m eric a n blacks? In other words, to
w hat e x te n t does an average black A m e r ic a n ’s test score underrepresent
h is or her actual level o f tho se abilities th e test p u rpo rts to m easure,
relative to th e average a b ility level o f m em b ers o f o th er racial or ethnic
groups?
T h e q u estio n is d irected at th e ra th e r te ch n ic al c o n c ep t o f bias as d if
feren tial p re d ic tio n , b u t is w ord ed in as stra ig h tfo rw a rd a m a n n e r as
possible. R atings o f bias for th is q u estio n , as for th e next, w ere m ad e o n a
4 - p o in t scale, w here 1 w as described as “ N o t at all o r in significantly b i
ased ,’’ 2 was "S o m e w h a t b ia sed ,” 3 was "M o d erate ly b ia sed ,” a n d 4 was
“ E x tre m e ly b ia se d .” T h e m e a n b ia s r a tin g fo r th is q u e s tio n is 2.12
(s.d. = .787, r.r. = 84.1%), in d ic atin g th a t ex p erts believe th e re is a sm all b u t
118
The IQ Controversy
significant a m o u n t o f racial bias (differential p red ic tio n ) in in tellig en ce
tests.
15. O n th e whole, to what ex te n t do yo u believe th e m o st c o m m o n ly u sed
intelligence tests are b ia se d against m e m b e rs o f low er so cioeconom ic
groups? In other words, to w hat e x te n t does th e test score o f an average
low er socioeconom ic group m e m b e r underrepresent h is or her a ctu a l level
o f th o se a b ilitie s th e test p u rp o rts to m easure, relative to th e average
a b ility level o f m em b ers o f o ther socioeconom ic groups?
T h e m ean ratin g received fo r so c io eco n o m ic bias is slightly h ig h er th a n
for racial bias, at 2.24 (s.d. = .813, r.r. = 84.7%).
B ia s as selection m odel. Selection m odel bias refers, n o t to bias in th e
test itself, b u t in how th e test is used in som e selection p ro ced u re. W h ereas
th e criteria for bias in tests are generally well defin ed a n d agreed u p o n , bias
o r fairness in selection p ro ce d u re s rem a in s a highly subjective m atter. T h e
perceived fairness o f an y given selection m odel is in d e p e n d e n t, however, o f
w h eth e r the test on w hich selection is based is itself biased. T h e m a n y
selection m odels pro p o sed m ay be classified in to th ree b ro a d categ o ries:27
unq u alified in d iv id u alism , qualified in d iv id u alism , a n d q u o tas. M o d els o f
unq u alified in d iv id u alism m a in ta in th a t a selection strategy sh o u ld pick
fro m th e pool o f ap p lica n ts tho se w ith th e highest p red ic ted p erfo rm an ce ,
using w hatev er c o m b in a tio n o f v ariables yields th e m o st valid p red ic tio n ,
even if o n e o f these variables is racial o r so c io eco n o m ic g ro u p m em b ersh ip .
Tests w ith u n eq u a l b u t know n regression eq u a tio n s for different g ro u p s
(biased tests) m ay th u s be used u n d e r unq u alified in d iv id u alism as long as
th e a p p ro p ria te regression eq u a tio n is used for m e m b ers o f each group.
(N o te th a t th e use o f se p arate regression eq u a tio n s for blacks an d w hites in
tests th a t c u rre n tly o v erp red ict black p e rfo rm a n c e will w ork to th e d e tri
m e n t o f black ap p lic a n ts c o m p ared to th e use o f a single, average e q u a
tio n .) Q ualified in d iv id u alism is iden tical to u n q u alified in d iv id u alism
w ith th e o n e c o n s tra in t th a t g ro u p m e m b e rsh ip sh o u ld n o t e n te r in to th e
selection p ro ced u re. W ith an u n b iased test, q ualified a n d u n q u alified in d i
v idualism rep rese n t th e sam e p o sitio n , b u t w ith a biased test, th e q u alified
in d iv id u alist m u st e ith e r n o t use th e test o r sacrifice p red ictiv e v alidity for
o n e o r m o re groups. Q u o tas m ake th is sacrifice ex p licit by tra d in g off a
ce rta in a m o u n t o f pred ictiv e validity in o rd er to achieve o th e r socially
im p o rta n t goals, p a rtic u la rly m o re p ro p o rtio n a l re p re se n ta tio n o f m in o r
ity g roups in schools an d o ccu p atio n s. O th e r thin g s b eing eq u al, th e higher
th e pred ictiv e validity o f th e test, th e g rea ter th e p ro p o rtio n o f in d iv id u als
from th e low er scoring g ro u p w ho will fail o n ce selected u n d e r a q u o ta
system in w hich th e test score cu to ff is low er for th e low er scoring group.
119
B ia s as th e wrong criterion. Even th o u g h a test has eq u al pred ictiv e
validity for different groups, bias in th e use o f the test m ay still exist if th e
criterio n being pred icted is biased. W hile such bias is tech n ically n o t in th e
test, th e test m ay be co n sid ered biased if it derives its m e an in g from such
c rite ria . F or ex a m p le , a te st o f m e c h a n ic a l a p titu d e m ay be v alid ated
th ro u g h co rrela tio n w ith supervisors' ratings in som e m e ch an ical train in g
course. If the su pervisors base th e ir ratings to a large degree o n th e tra in e e ’s
race o r eth n ic group, th e n th e test m ay be co n sid ered a biased m easu re o f
m ech an ical ability, unless o th e r unb iased v alid atio n criteria exist. A sim ilar
claim m ay be m ade again st intelligence tests, w hich a p p e a r to have equal
p red ictive validity for school p e rfo rm a n c e am o n g blacks a n d w hites. If
success in schools d e p e n d s p rim a rily o n a s sim ila tio n to w h ite c u ltu re
ra th e r th a n intelligence, th e n IQ tests m ay be biased in d ic ato rs o f w hat they
p u rp o rt to m easure. T h a t m o st intelligence tests are v alid ated ag ain st a
large n u m b e r o f pred ictiv e a n d c o n stru c t criteria m ak es th is possibility
unlikely, b u t o n e m u st still be w ary o f p a rtic u la rly c u ltu re -lo a d e d validity
criteria.
Bias in th e validity c riterio n m ay also w ork to m ak e an u n b iased test
a p p e a r biased. A test th a t is an equally valid m easure o f so m e ab ility in two
g ro u p s will have differential pred ictiv e validity if th e validity criterio n is
biased against one o f th e groups. A finding o f differential p red ictiv e validity
th erefo re does n o t au to m atica lly m ean th e test is biased, ju s t as eq u iv alen t
p red ic tio n o r validity d o e s n ’t m ean th a t it is not.
B ias as atm osphere. A tm o sp h e re refers to a w ide v ariety o f ex tern al
sources o f bias, in c lu d in g co ach in g an d practice effects, language o r a t
titu d e o f th e exam iner, an d in stru c tio n s o r scoring. All o f these elem en ts
m ay have an influence on test score, b u t they only rep rese n t bias if they
differentially affect c e rta in groups. P erhaps th e m o st w idely h y p o th esized
o f th ese biasing variables is race o f th e exam iner. Je n se n ’s review o f th irty
stu d ies d irected at th is q u estio n fo u n d overw helm ingly n o n sig n ifican t re
sults o f race o f ex a m in e r o n black a n d w hite c h ild re n .28 O th e r variables,
like co ach in g effects an d e x a m in e r’s a ttitu d e , have been show n to have
sm all b u t significant effects on test scores, b u t no a p p a re n t differential
effect across c u ltu ra l groups. S om e o f these variables will be discussed
fu rth e r in the n ext chapter.
B ia s as m otivation. As n o te d in C h a p te r 2, N. J. Block a n d G erald
D w o rkin have argued th a t intelligence tests are, to a significant degree, a
m easure o f c e rta in p erso n ality an d m o tiv atio n al ch aracteristics. O u r ex
p e rt sam p le agrees (q u estio n 8). Block an d D w orkin fu rth e r m a in ta in th a t
because these ch aracteristics are n o n in te lle ctu al, th e ir in flu en ce on in te l
ligence test scores seriously d ilu tes the IQ as a m easu re o f "intelligence.” In
a d d itio n , because it is reasonable to expect th a t in d iv id u als from different
120
The IQ Controversy
cu ltu ral b ack g ro u n d s will vary on average in th e degree to w hich th ey
display these p erso n ality a n d m o tiv a tio n a l traits, in telligence tests can be
said to be biased against test ta k ers from c u ltu res th a t d o n o t stress th e
tested tra its.29
Jeff H ow ard a n d R ay H a m m o n d , in a 1985 N ew R ep u b lic article , have
m a d e th is a rg u m e n t explicit for black A m eric an s.30 H ow ard a n d H a m
m o n d d istinguish betw een p erfo rm a n c e a n d ability, stressing th a t th e black
in tellectu al p e rfo rm a n c e gap, as m e asu red on th e jo b , in school, a n d in test
scores, does n o t reflect a deficit in in te lle ctu al ability. R ather, th ey claim ,
th e p erfo rm a n c e gap is largely a b ehavioral p ro b lem cau sed by a te n d en c y
am o n g m e m b ers o f th e b lack c o m m u n ity to avoid in tellectu al c o m p e ti
tio n . T h is m o tiv a tio n a l/b e h a v io ra l p ro b lem is, in tu rn , th e resu lt o f a larger
society th a t “ p ro jects an im age o f b lack intellectu al in fe rio rity ” th a t is
“ in te r n a liz e d by b la c k p e o p le .” M oreover, “ im p u tin g in te lle c tu a l in
feriority to genetic causes, especially in th e face o f d a ta co n firm in g p o o re r
p e rfo rm an ce , intensifies th e fears a n d d o u b ts th a t s u rro u n d th is issue.”31
T h e b ia s -a s -m o tiv a tio n p ro b lem req u ires for its so lu tio n a r e tu rn to th e
q u estio n o f th e n a tu re o f intelligence. H ow ard a n d H a m m o n d arg u e th a t
p erfo rm a n c e o n tests sh o u ld be d istin g u ish e d fro m in te lle ctu al ability, a n d
th a t if m o tiv atio n al p ro b lem s are solved, e q u iv ale n t black a n d w h ite in te l
lectual ability will be d e m o n stra te d in te st p erfo rm an ce . T h ey m ay be
right, b u t, as th ey note, intelligence tests are beh av io ral m easu res o f p erfo r
m a n ce in th e in tellectu al d o m a in . T h e validity o f th ese tests derives from
th e ir ability to p red ic t p erfo rm a n c e in o th e r in tellectu al d o m a in s. To th e
ex ten t th a t th e p o o rer black p e rfo rm a n c e on tests is reflected in p o o rer
black p e rfo rm a n c e in school an d on th e jo b , th e tests are n o t biased.
Block a n d D w orkin cite te stin g ex p erts w ho claim th a t p erso n ality an d
m o tiv a tio n a l variables are a necessary p a r t o f in tellectu al p erfo rm an ce ,
a n d th e tw o a u th o rs th e re b y c o n d e m n tests as im p u re m easu res o f “ in te l
ligence.” Block an d D w orkin refuse to accep t th e n o tio n th a t in telligence is
a behavioral (i.e., p erfo rm an ce ) co n cep t, clinging in stead to an idea o f
intelligence as p u re, a n d th e re fo re u n m e asu rab le, in tellectu al ability. T h e
“a b ility ” intelligence an d a p titu d e tests m easu re is n o t an ab stra ct co n cep t,
b u t ra th e r th e ability to p e rfo rm on c e rta in intellectu al tasks.
All o f th is is n o t to say th a t m o tiv atio n c a n n o t be a source o f bias in
intelligence tests. If blacks are, on average, less m o tiv a te d to p e rfo rm o n
intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests, a n d th is m o tiv a tio n a l difference d o es n o t
c a rry over to in tellectu al p e rfo rm a n c e in o th e r areas, th e n th e tests m ay be
co n sid ered biased in d ic a to rs o f black in tellectu al ab ility (as m e asu red by
p erfo rm an ce). T h ere are, at present, v irtu ally n o d a ta relev an t to th is q u e s
tion.
121
16. O ther bia sin g factors.
Surveyed ex p erts w ere presen ted w ith a list o f five facto rs th a t have been
pro p o sed a t v arious tim es as differentially affecting th e test scores o f m e m
bers o f c e rta in eth n ic, racial, o r e c o n o m ic groups. T h ey w ere asked to rate
th e degree to w hich they believe each o f th e factors biases in d iv id u ally
a d m in iste re d in te llig en ce test scores. R a tin g s w ere m a d e on a 4 - p o in t
scale, w here 1 w as “ In sig n ific a n t b iasin g effec t,” 2 w as “ S o m e b iasin g
effect,” 3 was “ M o d erate biasing effect," a n d 4 was “ Large b iasing effect.”
M ean b ias ratin g s fo r th e five fa c to rs are rac e o f th e e x a m in e r, 1.91
(s.d . = .7 5 8 , r.r. = 85.9% ); la n g u ag e a n d d ia le c t o f th e ex a m in e r, 2 .46
(s.d. = .865, r.r. = 86.2% ); a ttitu d e o f th e e x a m in e r to w ard th e g ro u p in
q u e s tio n , 2 .7 4 (s .d . = .9 3 2 , r.r. = 8 5 .6 % ); te s t ta k e r a n x ie ty , 2 .6 3
(s.d. = .894, r.r. = 85.1%); a n d te st ta k e r m o tiv a tio n , 2.91 (s.d. = .925,
r.r. = 85.6%).
It is in terestin g th a t tw o o f th e m o st c o m m o n ly m e n tio n e d e x p lan a tio n s
for th e b la c k -w h ite IQ difference, th a t b lack test ta k ers p erfo rm m o re
p o o rly w ith w h ite e x a m in e rs, a n d lack o f m o tiv a tio n to p e rfo rm well
am o n g black stu d en ts, received the low est an d highest bias ratings, respec
tively. P erhaps th e difference reflects th e fact th a t a su b stan tia l body o f
em p irica l literatu re exists c o n c e rn in g th e q u estio n o f e x a m in e r race, w hile
e x p la n a tio n s in te rm s o f test ta k e r m o tiv atio n rem a in largely h y p o th etical.
O verall, co n sid erin g several d efin itio n s o f test bias, ex p e rt resp o n d e n ts
believe th e m o st co m m o n ly used intelligence tests are so m ew h at biased
ag ain st blacks an d m e m b ers o f low er so c io eco n o m ic groups, w ith th e h ig h
est bias ratings received for sources ex tern al to th e test. E x p erts on bias,
defined as those w ho w ere co n d u c tin g research o r had w ritten at least o n e
article o r c h a p te r on bias o r g ro u p differences (N = 173), rated all o f th e
sou rces o f bias (q u estio n s 13-16) low er (less biasing effect) th a n d id th e rest
o f th e sam ple, th o u g h th e difference w as significant (p < .01) o n ly for test
ta k e r m o tiv a tio n (2.75 vs. 2.98, X 2 = 8.6, d.f. = 1, p < .004, 2 -tailed ).
G enetic Influences on Race and C lass D ifferences in IQ
G iv en th e large b la c k -w h ite a n d SES differences in IQ, an y th in g sh o rt o f
a very large a m o u n t o f bias will be insufficient to explain these differentials.
T h e ex p e rts c o n te n d th a t th e re is som e racial an d e c o n o m ic bias in in te l
ligence a n d a p titu d e tests. E ven so, a su b stan tia l p ro p o rtio n , p ro b ab ly
m o st, o f th e g ro u p differences in test score rem a in s to be ex p lain ed . It is a
v irtu a l c e rta in ty th a t en v iro n m e n ta l factors play a role; th e difference in
lifestyles betw een black a n d low er class ch ild ren a n d m id d le -a n d u p p e r -
122
The IQ Controversy
class w hites is to o ex tre m e n o t to have an effect o n in tellectu al d ev elo p
m en t. W h a t is u n c e rta in is w h eth e r these e n v iro n m e n ta l differences are
them selves a sufficient ex p lan a tio n o f g ro u p differences in average test
score. T h e a ltern ativ e, th a t genetic factors also are im p o rta n t, rem a in s th e
m o st c o n te n tio u s o f all IQ -re la te d issues.
A rth u r Je n sen hyp o th esized th a t genetic facto rs play a role in th e b la c k w h ite IQ differential. F or th is he was physically th re a te n e d , publicly c e n
sured, an d called a racist by n u m e ro u s parties. A n d he c o n tin u e s to be
m isre p re sen ted to th e p resen t day. A n th ro p o lo g ist M elvin K onner, in his
highly regarded book o n biology a n d h u m a n behavior, T h e T angled W ing,
accuses Je n sen o f “ [ c la im in g to have show n th a t k n o w n race differences in
intelligence w ere genetically b ased ,” w hen Je n sen o n ly h y p o th esized th a t
genetic factors play a ro le.32 (“G en e tic ally b ased ” so u n d s su spiciously like
“genetic d e te rm in a tio n .” ) K o n n e r th e n describes a n d criticizes a g rap h
su p p o se d ly u sed by Je n se n to arg u e fo r g e n e - e n v ir o n m e n t in te ra c tio n
effects in th e b la c k -w h ite IQ difference. B ut such a g rap h n ev er a p p e ars in
a n y o f Je n se n ’s w riting; K o n n e r has a p p a re n tly set u p a straw m a n in o rd er
to express his d isag reem en t w ith Je n se n ’s thesis. N u m e ro u s a d d itio n a l ex
a m p les o f such m isre p re sen tatio n are available in G o u ld ’s T h e M ism e a su r e
o f M a n a n d in several p u b lic atio n s by th e C am b rid g e, M assach u setts based
o rg an iz atio n Science fo r th e P eople.33
In th e new s m ed ia a n d elsew here, Je n sen , a n d th o se w ho agreed w ith
h im , w ere accused o f assertin g th e in n a te in ferio rity o f blacks. T h is is a
false b u t u n d e rsta n d a b le ac cu satio n . It relates to tw o fu n d a m e n ta l c o n
ce p tio n s in A m erican th o u g h t to w hich Je n sen w as p erh a p s insufficiently
a tte n d a n t. First, th e re is th e general co n fu sio n , discussed in th e last c h a p
ter, betw een genetic influence an d in n a te, o r “ fixed,” traits. T h e possibility
o f a genetic c o m p o n e n t to g ro u p difference in IQ in no way p reclu d es a
n arrow ing, o r even elim in a tio n , o f these differences; as long as th e e n v iro n
m e n t plays a role, an y th in g is possible. T h is tru th is g enerally ign o red ; talk
o f genetics ru n s c o u n te r to th e b elief in th e essential eq u a lity o f m an .
Second, th e q u estio n is o n e o f differences in IQ, n o t inferiority. In d iv id u
als a n d g roups differ in m y riad physical a n d b eh av io ral traits. To say th a t a
p a rtic u la r perso n o r g ro u p is in ferio r o r su p e rio r is a m o ral ju d g m e n t based
o n th e value placed o n these traits; objectively, p eo p le are o n ly different.
A rth u r Je n sen is a scien tist w ho was discussing differences in a b eh av io ral
trait. (It w ould be fair to say th a t Je n sen believes blacks, on average, to be
inferior in intelligence b u t th is b elief is held by an y o n e w h o does n o t th in k
c u ltu ra l bias is a sufficient ex p la n a tio n o f th e b la c k -w h ite IQ d ifferential,
a n d it is n o t a sta te m e n t a b o u t general w o rth .) T h e value p laced o n th a t
tra it is society’s, n o t Je n se n ’s. Som ehow , intelligence, m o re th a n alm o st an y
o th e r h u m a n attrib u te , is co n sid ered ce n tral to an in d iv id u a l’s w o rth . If
123
Je n sen h ad been discussing g ro u p differences in m usical ap titu d e o r a th
letic ability, his n am e w ould n o t be infam o u s. B ut to call so m eo n e to n e
d e a f o r clum sy has n o t nearly th e im p act o f calling h im stu p id . Je n sen has
n ever m a in ta in e d th a t blacks are an y w orse, o r sh o u ld be trea ted any
differently as a group, because o f th e ir scores o n in telligence tests; in fact,
he has fre q u en tly asserted th e opposite. Je n sen m ay be accu sed o f ex trem e
callo usness in baldly add ressin g so sensitive an issue; such an accu satio n
has its m erits. But to call Je n sen , o r an y o n e else w ho ratio n ally discusses
th e em p irical d a ta on g ro u p differences in IQ a racist is grossly unfair.
C o m p o u n d in g th e difficulties in m a in ta in in g ratio n al disco u rse a b o u t
g ro u p differences is th e fact th a t genetic influences o n race a n d class d if
f e r e n c e s in IQ a r e e x tr e m e ly d if f ic u lt to e s tim a te . W i t h i n - g r o u p
heritability, because it is tied to th e p a rtic u la r en v iro n m e n ta l an d genetic
v aria tio n existing w ith in the group, has little relevance to th e causes o f
b e tw e e n - g r o u p v a ria tio n . J e n s e n h as arg u e d th a t th e h ig h d eg ree o f
h eritab ility for IQ w ithin th e b lack an d w hite p o p u la tio n s m akes it m o re
p ro b able th a t b e tw e e n -g ro u p differences have som e significant h eritab le
c o m p o n e n t as w ell.34 R ich a rd L ew ontin an d o th e rs disagree, citin g e x a m
ples from genetic stu d ies w ith o th e r org an ism s d e m o n stra tin g th a t high
w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility can be associated w ith alm o st an y degree o f ge
netic influence betw een g ro u p s.35
A n ex am p le given by L ew ontin is w orth rep eatin g here, as it helps clarify
th e im p o rta n t d istin c tio n betw een w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility a n d b e tw e e n g ro u p differences (a d istin c tio n m ore often b lu rre d th a n u n d e rsto o d in
new s m edia re p o rts— See C h a p te r 7):
We will take two handsful from a sack containing seed of an open-pollinated
variety of corn. Such a variety has lots of genetic variation in it. Instead of
using potting soil, however, we will grow the seed in vermiculite watered with
a carefully made up nutrient. Knop's solution, used by plant physiologists for
controlled growth experiments. One batch of seed will be grown on complete
Knop's solution, but the other will have the concentration of nitrates cut in
half. . .. After several weeks we will measure the plants. Now we will find
variation within seed lots which is entirely genetical since no environmental
variation within seed lots was allowed. Thus heritability will be 1.0. However,
there will be a radical difference between seed lots which is ascribable entirely
to the difference in nutrient levels. Thus, we have a case where heritability
within populations is complete, yet the difference between populations is
entirely environmental!36
L ew ontin s p o in t is th a t even if we know th a t th e w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility
o f IQ is su b stan tia l, th is tells us n o th in g a b o u t th e p o ssibility o f genetic
b e tw e e n -g ro u p differences; they are in d e p e n d e n t q u estio n s. Je n sen d e m
o n strates, however, th a t high w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility necessarily im plies
124
The IQ Controversy
su b stan tia l b e tw e e n -g ro u p genetic influences, as long as th e so u rces o f
e n v iro n m e n ta l v ariatio n are th e sam e betw een as w ith in g ro u p s.37 Large
w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility is on ly c o n siste n t w ith n o g en etic in flu en ce b e
tw een g ro u p s if th e re is so m e source o r so urces o f en v iro n m e n ta l v aria tio n
th a t exists o nly betw een groups, like th e v aria tio n in n u trie n ts in L ew ontin ’s exam ple. B ut black a n d w hite A m eric an s are tw o p o p u la tio n s w here
such a source o f en v iro n m e n ta l v aria tio n is very likely to exist: it falls
u n d e r th e g eneral h ead in g o f “ racial d isc rim in a tio n .” T h u s, if th e e n v iro n
m e n ts o f b lack a n d w hite A m eric an s differ in ways th a t are n o t g enerally
seen betw een fam ilies o r in d iv id u als w ith in th e black a n d w h ite c o m m u
nities, e stim a tes o f w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility are o f d u b io u s relev an ce to
th e b e tw e e n -g ro u p q u estio n .
T h e m a jo r obstacle to th e stu d y o f th e causes o f g ro u p differences is th a t
it m ay be im p o ssib le to ra n d o m iz e o r c o n tro l th e rele v an t en v iro n m e n ta l
factors, a n d th u s se p arate genetic from en v iro n m e n ta l so u rces o f v aria tio n .
H ow can o n e be sure, for exam p le, th a t a b lack an d a w h ite ch ild have been
raised in sim ila r e n v iro n m e n ts, w hen genetically based racial differences
rem a in obvious? Even b lack a n d w hite ch ild ren raised in th e sam e h o m e
m ay be tre a te d very differently because o f th e ir skin color. M an y ex p e rts in
th e stu d y o f genetics have argued th a t th e n a tu re o f th e situ a tio n m ak es it
im possible to ad e q u ately assess the q u estio n o f th e g en etic in flu en ce on
g ro u p differences in psychological tra its.38
T h is p ro b lem is obviously o f m o re relevance to racial a n d e th n ic g ro u p
th a n to so c io eco n o m ic class differences. T h e evid en ce fo r a gen etic c o m p o
n en t to differences in intelligence betw een classes is th e re fo re less c o n tro
versial. O ne can e x a m in e th e effects o f m oving ch ild ren o f th e sam e race
from o n e social stra tu m to a n o th e r w ith o u t w o rry in g a b o u t th e ch ild ren
c a rry in g w ith th e m physical m a rk e rs o f th e ir biological p are n ts’ social
class. E. M . L aw rence fo u n d a significant c o rre la tio n betw een biological
fathers’ SES an d th e IQ o f ch ild ren raised in an o rp h an a g e, w hich w as o nly
slightly low er th a n th e sam e c o rre la tio n for ch ild ren raised w ith th e ir p a r
e n ts.39 Sim ilarly, A lice L eahy observed th a t th e IQ o f c h ild ren a d o p te d in
infancy show ed a m u c h low er c o rre la tio n w ith ad o p ted p a re n ts’ SES th a n is
th e case for ch ild ren raised in th e ir n a tu ra l h o m e s.40 T h u s it seem s th a t at
least p a rt o f th e influence o f a p a re n t’s SES o n th e child's IQ is in d e p e n d e n t
o f th e e n v iro n m e n t th e p a re n t provides.
F u rth e r evidence for genetic IQ differences betw een classes is deriv ed
from th e social m obility hypothesis, discussed in C h a p te r 2. T h e h y p o th
esis is th a t o n e ’s intelligence, as m e asu red by IQ tests, is an im p o rta n t
d e te rm in a n t o f o n e ’s ev e n tu al SES. We saw (q u estio n 6) th a t a m a jo rity o f
ex p e rt resp o n d e n ts are in ag re em e n t w ith th is p ro p o sitio n . T h e a p p a re n t
in fluence o f IQ on SES, co u p led w ith th e su b stan tia l h eritab ility o f IQ in
125
th e general p o p u la tio n , seem s to im ply th a t at least so m e o f th e IQ d if
ference betw een classes is heritable. In an article in th e A tla n tic in 1971,
R ich ard H e rrn ste in m a d e th e arg u m e n t explicit, a n d slightly m o re general,
in th e follow ing (ab b rev iated ) syllogism : (Sociologist B ruce E ck lan d m ad e
essentially th e sam e arg u m e n t, also in 1971, in a strictly a c ad e m ic text, an d
th u s received no n otoriety.)41
1. If differences in m en tal abilities (as m easu red , for ex am p le, in in te l
ligence tests) are to som e e x te n t in h erited ; an d
2. if success in o u r society calls for those m e n tal abilities;
3. th e n , success in o u r society reflects in h e rited differences betw een people
to som e extent.
H e rrn ste in is a firm believer in th e social m o b ility hy p o th esis, arg u in g
th a t o u r society is to a significant degree a m eritocracy, in w hich ability is
an im p o rta n t d e te rm in a n t o f success. An im p o rta n t co ro llary to H e rrn ste in ’s syllogism is th a t as en v iro n m e n ta l factors relev an t to th e d ev elo p
m e n t o f intelligence b ec o m e m o re u n ifo rm (by being m a d e as good as
possible for everyone), the h eritab ility o f intelligence will increase, a n d the
syllogism will hold w ith even greater force. T h u s, H e rrn s te in con clu d es,
th e realizatio n o f eg alitarian social an d p olitical goals will fu rth e r stratify
society in to an increasingly h ere d itary m erito cracy ; as e n v iro n m e n ts b e
co m e m o re sim ilar, differences in m e rit will d ep e n d m o re co m p letely on
differences in heredity. A ssortative m a tin g serves to accelerate th is s tra t
ification.
H e rrn s te in ’s article, p u b lish ed only tw o years after Je n se n ’s fam o u s p a
per, to u c h e d off yet a n o th e r sto rm o f contro v ersy an d p ro test, m u c h o f it
q u ite uncivil (See C h a p te r 1). A p o ste r p u t o u t by th e C o m m itte e A gainst
R acism (C A R )42 in S to rrs, C o n n e c tic u t, a d v e rtisin g a “ N a tio n a l C o n
ference on R acism an d th e U niversity,” show s a tree, w hose ro o ts are
labeled "R ac ism , T h e K iller W eed.” H anging from th e b ran c h es o f th e tree
are th e heads o f six scientists: H e rrn ste in , Je n sen , Shockley, H a n s E ysenck
(an English psychologist w ho has been a sta u n ch su p p o rte r o f Jensen),
D an ie l P atric k M o y n ih a n . a n d E dw ard B anfield. A sso ciated w ith each
h ead is a b allo o n co n ta in in g a q u o te from th e scientist. H e rrn s te in ’s q u o te ,
from his A tla n tic article, reads, “ as tech n o lo g y advances, th e te n d en c y to
be u n em p lo y ed m ay ru n in th e genes o f a fam ily a b o u t as c e rta in ly as bad
te eth d o now.” T h e racism in h e re n t in th is sta te m e n t is p erh ap s m o re
a p p a re n t to th e C A R th a n to tho se w ho have read H e rrn s te in ’s article.
1 7. W hich o f th e fo llo w in g best characterizes yo u r o p inion o f the
h erita b ility o f so c io -e co n o m ic class differences in IQ ?
Technically, th is q u estio n is m isw orded. as o n e generally does n o t speak
o f th e “ h e rita b ility ” o f b e tw e e n -g ro u p differences, b u t ra th e r th e “source.”
126
The IQ Controversy
N o netheless, th e response o p tio n s m ad e it clear w hat we w ere asking. T h ey
were: “T h e difference is d u e en tirely to en v iro n m e n ta l v a ria tio n ,” “ T h e
d ifference is d u e en tirely to gen etic v a ria tio n ,” “ T h e difference is a p ro d u c t
o f b o th genetic an d en v iro n m e n ta l v a ria tio n ,” a n d “ T h e d a ta are insuffi
cien t to s u p p o rt an y rea so n ab le o p in io n .” A m ajo rity o f ex p e rts (55 p er
cent) choose th e g e n e tic -e n v iro n m e n ta l o p tio n , as o p p o sed to 12 p erc en t
for strictly e n v iro n m e n ta l. T h ere w ere 15 p erc en t no responses, an d 18
p erc en t d o n o t feel th e re are sufficient d ata. O nly o n e re sp o n d e n t attrib u te s
th e difference en tirely to genetics.
T h e stu d y o f genetic influences on racial differences in IQ is a m o re
difficult p ro b lem th a n SES differences, in p a rt becau se o f difficulties in
c o n tro llin g relev an t e n v iro n m e n ts. B ut p erh a p s m o st o f th e p ro b lem arises
because th is are a is so contro v ersial an d , it is believed, p o te n tia lly d a n
g ero u s th a t research “ is subjected to th e sc ru tin y o f an electro n m ic ro
scope.”43 T rad itio n al k in sh ip studies, w hen th ey ca n be p e rfo rm e d at all,
are ra th e r easily criticized as insufficiently co n tro lled . T h e b u lk o f th e
evidence m u st th erefo re co m e from m o re in d ire ct sources, a state o f affairs
th a t allow s th e d a ta at p resen t to su p p o rt v irtu ally an y co n c lu sio n a b o u t
th e source o f racial differences.
Jo h n C. L oehlin an d his associates review ed th e rele v an t d a ta in th e ir
m y riad , an d so m etim es ra th e r sketchy, fo rm s in 1975.44 P h ilip V ern o n has
u p d ated th is review, su m m a riz in g som e th irty different ty p es o f ev id en ce
b earin g on th e source o f racial differences in IQ .45 T h e o p in io n s rea ch ed in
b o th review s are essentially th e sam e: th e lite ra tu re c o n ta in s n u m e ro u s
p oorly designed a n d executed studies. N evertheless, b la c k -w h ite IQ d if
ferences p ro b ab ly reflect b o th e n v iro n m e n ta l a n d g en etic differences. All
a u th o rs are careful to p o in t o u t, however, th a t th e d a ta are n o t o f sufficient
q u ality o r co n sisten cy to be co n sid ered conclusive. Je n sen ad v o cates essen
tially th e sam e po sitio n , calling h im se lf an agnostic for p u rp o ses o f p u b lic
policy, b u t m a in ta in in g a research hypo th esis th a t b o th gen etic a n d e n
v iro n m e n ta l factors are im p o rta n t.46 O th ers (R . D arrell Bock an d Elsie G.
J. M oore, as well as B rian M acK enzie) have ex a m in e d th e relev an t d a ta a n d
co n c lu d e th a t th e m o st rea so n ab le hyp o th esis is th a t racial differences in
IQ a re c o m p le te ly e n v iro n m e n ta lly d e te rm in e d .47 It m ay th e re fo re be
useful at th is p o in t to review som e o f th e m o re im p o rta n t pieces o f evi
d en ce p e rta in in g to th e genetic q u estio n .
As no ted , w ith in -g ro u p estim ates o f h eritab ility are relev an t to th e betw e e n -g ro u p q u estio n only if all sources o f e n v iro n m e n ta l v aria tio n are
th e sam e w ith in an d betw een groups. V ernon has estim a ted th a t given a
w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility o f 0.6 0 (h erita b ility estim ates are ap p ro x im ate ly
th e sam e w ithin th e black a n d w hite A m eric an p o p u latio n s), b e tw e e n fam ily en v iro n m e n ta l varian ce (actually, sta n d a rd d ev iatio n ) ac c o u n ts for
127
6.3 IQ p o in ts (the re m a in d e r is w ithin fam ilies, a n d is th e re fo re n o t rele
v a n t to th e b la c k -w h ite d ifferen ce).48 In o rd e r for th e e n tire 1 5 -p o in t
b la c k -w h ite difference to be ac c o u n te d for by sources o f en v iro n m e n ta l
v aria tio n existing w ith in groups, the average black e n v iro n m e n t w ould
have to be 2.38 sta n d a rd d ev iatio n s w orse (intellectu ally ) th a n th e average
w h ite en v iro n m e n t. If such a large average d isp arity d o es n o t in fact exist, a
co m p letely en v iro n m e n ta l ex p la n a tio n for th e b la c k -w h ite IQ difference
m u st look to en v iro n m e n ta l (i.e., cu ltu ral) differences th a t d o n o t exist
w ith in e ith e r p o p u la tio n . Je n sen has labeled these differences F acto r X
because, he says, th ey have n o t been clearly identified o r agreed u p o n by
th o se w ho argue th a t racial differences in IQ are en tirely e n v iro n m e n ta l.49
H y p o th eses a b o u t th e effects o f slavery an d p reju d ice aside, Je n sen sees
such ex p lan a tio n s, a t present, as n o th in g m o re th a n ad ho c c o n jec tu re s.50
O th ers, m o st n o ta b ly S an d ra Scarr, disagree, citin g ev id en ce from sys
te m a tic in v e stig a tio n s o f c h ild - re a r in g p rac tice s th a t d e m o n s tra te real
q u a lita tiv e d ifferen ces b etw een b lack a n d w h ite fa m ilie s .51 T h ese d if
ferences m ay also provide an en v iro n m e n ta l ex p la n a tio n for th e low er IQs
o f b lack th a n w hite ch ild ren w hose p are n ts have eq u iv a le n t SES a n a IQ.
Less am b ig u o u s, b u t still inconclusive, evidence for a genetic c o m p o
n e n t to racial differences in c lu d es th e follow ing: (1) A m eric an In d ian s an d
M exican A m erican s, despite e q u iv ale n t o r w orse so c io eco n o m ic c o n d i
tio n s th a n blacks, have higher average IQ scores; (2) H ead S ta rt p ro g ram s,
w hose stu d e n t p o p u la tio n is alm o st en tirely black, have failed to signifi
c an tly raise IQ s in th e long ru n ; an d (3) im p ro v e m en ts in black ed u c atio n al
an d en v iro n m e n ta l c o n d itio n s over the past th irty years have p ro d u ced no
d ecrease in th e IQ differential. O u r ea rlier caveat a b o u t e n v iro n m e n ta l
m a n ip u la tio n s applies to these last tw o p o in ts as well; th a t th o se m a n ip u la
tio n s th a t have been tried have n o t been successful d o es n o t im p ly th a t
o th e r e n v iro n m e n ta l changes will m eet w ith sim ila r failure. J hese failures
are co n siste n t, however, w ith significant genetic in fluence on b e tw e e n g ro u p IQ differences u n d e r the e x istin g c o n d itio n s o f en v iro n m e n ta l v aria
tio n . M oreover, th e average IQ o f b oth black an d w h ite A m eric an s has
im p ro v ed over th e past th irty years, b u t th e b la c k -w h ite difference has n o t
ch anged. T hus, w hile the ed u c a tio n a n d e n v iro n m e n t o f b lack A m erican s
a p p a re n tly have im proved, so have th a t o f w hites, an d th e differences in
black a n d w hite e n v iro n m e n t (at least as tney relate to IQ ) m ay be as great
as ever.
A dvocates o f a c o m p letely e n v iro n m e n ta l e x p la n a tio n o f racial d if
ferences in intelligence m ay find s u p p o rt in th e failure o f stu d ies th a t have
a tte m p te d to link genetic m a rk e rs o f E u ro p ean o r A frican an cestry to IQ to
find any such relatio n . Sim ilarly, th e re is little rela tio n betw een IQ an d
lightness o f skin color. (S tudies linking IQ to degree o f w h ite an c estry have
128
The IQ Controversy
p ro d u ce d c o n tra d ic to ry results.) E n v iro n m e n ta lists m ig h t also p o in t o u t
th a t, in c o n tra d istin c tio n to th e failure o f H ead S tart, m o re in ten se in te r
ven tio n p ro g ra m s w ith black ch ild ren , like th e M ilw aukee P roject, a p p e a r
to have p ro d u ce d su b stan tia l IQ gains.
A study o f racial differences in intelligence by S an d ra S carr a n d R ich a rd
W einberg deserves special m e n tio n because it is o n e o f th e few such stu d ies
to utilize tra d itio n a l b e h a v io r-g e n e tic m ethodo lo g y .52 O n e h u n d re d th irty
ch ild ren from e ith e r black o r in te rra c ia l m atin g s w ere ad o p ted , m o st very
early in life, in to ad v a n ta g ed (m ean a n n u a l in c o m e $ 1 6 ,0 0 0 in 1976, IQ
119) w hite h o m e s in M in n e so ta . T h e a d o p te d ch ild ren , w hose n a tu ra l
p are n ts w ere ed u c atio n ally average, scored above th e IQ average o f th e
w hite p o p u la tio n , b u t n o t as high as th e ad o p tiv e p a re n ts’ n a tu ra l ch ild ren .
T h e a u th o rs fo u n d stro n g s u p p o rt fo r an e n v iro n m e n ta l ex p la n a tio n in a
c o m p a riso n o f th e average ad o p tiv e c h ild ’s IQ o f 106 to th e black p o p u la
tio n average (in th e N o rth C e n tral U n ite d S tates) o f 90. B lac k /in te rrac ial
ad o p tee s’ IQs co m p are favorably to th o se o f w hite ad o p tee s in o th e r a d o p
tio n studies. M oreover, th e ea rlier a child w as ad o p ted , th e higher her
ev en tu al IQ.
T h e S carr an d W einberg stu d y has been criticized for a n u m b e r o f rea
sons, b u t p rim a rily for p o o r sa m p lin g te ch n iq u e s, in c lu d in g re c ru itm e n t o f
ad o p tiv e fam ilies on a v o lu n ta ry basis a n d th e po ssibility o f selective p lace
m e n t by ad o p tio n agencies, so th a t a h ig h e r- th a n -9 0 IQ m ig h t have been
expected from ad o p tee s p urely on genetic g ro u n d s.53 T h e presen ce o f b o th
in te rra cia l an d black ad o p tees poses p a rtic u la r p ro b lem s fo r a strictly e n
v iro n m e n ta l in te rp re ta tio n , as th e black p a rtn e r o f an in te rra c ia l m a tin g
m ig h t be expected to have an IQ above th e black p o p u la tio n average (See
th e discussion o f asso rtativ e m a tin g in c h a p te r 3). In fact, in te rra c ia l a d o p
tees had an average IQ o f 109, c o m p ared to 97 for black ad o p tees. S carr
a n d W einberg a ttrib u te th is result to p r e - a n d p o s t-a d o p tiv e e n v iro n m e n
tal differences ra th e r th a n gen etic factors, b u t if co rrec t, th ese a u th o rs are
m erely in d ictin g th e ir ow n procedures.
18. W hich o f th e fo llo w in g best characterizes y o u r o p inion o f th e
h erita b ility o f th e b la c k -w h ite difference in IQ ?
T h e caveat a b o u t th e w ording o f q u estio n 17 ap p lies h ere as well. T h e
response a lte rn a tiv e s w ere also th e sam e. In th is case, a p lu rality o f ex p e rts
(45 percent), an d a m ajo rity o f resp o n d e n ts, believe th e b la c k -w h ite IQ
difference to be a p ro d u c t o f bo th genetic a n d en v iro n m e n ta l v aria tio n ,
c o m p ared to on ly 15 p erc en t w ho feel th e difference is en tirely d u e to
en v iro n m e n ta l variatio n . T w e n ty -fo u r p erc en t o f ex p e rts d o n o t believe
th e re are sufficient d a ta to s u p p o rt an y rea so n ab le o p in io n , a n d 14 p erc en t
d id n o t resp o n d to th e q u estio n . Eight o f th e ex p e rts (1 p ercen t) in d ic ate a
129
b elief in an entirely genetic d e te rm in a tio n . T h a t a m a jo rity o f ex p erts w ho
resp o n d to this q u estio n believe genetic d e te rm in a n ts to be im p o rta n t in
th e b la c k -w h ite IQ difference is rem a rk a b le in light o f th e overw helm ingly
negative reactio n from bo th the ac ad e m ic an d p u b lic sph eres th a t m et
J e n s e n ’s s ta te m e n t o f th e sa m e hyp o th esis. E ith e r e x p e rt o p in io n has
ch an ged d ram a tic ally since 1969, o r th e psychological an d ed u c atio n al
c o m m u n itie s are n o t m ak in g th e ir o p in io n s know n to th e general public.
It is in terestin g to c o m p a re these results to tho se o f a sim ilar survey
c o n d u c te d by R o b e rt F rie d rich s in 1973.54 F rie d rich s p o lled 341 APA
m e m b ers as to th e ir ag re em e n t o r d isag reem en t w ith th e follow ing q u o ta
tio n from Jensen: “ [I]t is a n o t u n rea so n ab le hypo th esis th a t gen etic facto rs
are strongly im p lica te d in th e average N e g ro -w h ite in telligence difference.
T h e p re p o n d e ra n c e o f the evid en ce is, in m y o p in io n , less co n siste n t w ith a
strictly en v iro n m e n ta l hypo th esis th a n w ith a genetic hypothesis.” Sixty
p erc en t o f re sp o n d e n ts e ith e r disagreed o r te n d ed to disagree, co m p ared to
o nly 28 p erc en t w ho e ith e r agreed o r te n d e d to agree.
T h ese results are deceiving for tw o reasons. F irst, th e q u o ta tio n p resen ts
to re sp o n d e n ts w h at survey ex p e rts call a “ d o u b le -b a rre le d q u estio n .” T h a t
is, th e re are tw o assertio n s c o n ta in e d in th e q u o ta tio n , a n d it is u n clea r to
w hich subjects are responding. It is possible th a t so m eo n e m ig h t agree th a t
genetic factors p resen t “a n o t u n rea so n ab le h y p o th esis,” b u t believe th a t
th e evidence still generally favors a strictly en v iro n m e n ta l ex p lan atio n .
T h is possibility is m ad e m o re salient by th e secon d an d m o re d am ag in g
p ro b lem w ith th e q u o ta tio n : it is highly m isleading. By ta k in g th e q u o ta
tio n o u t o f co n tex t, th e im p ressio n is given th a t by “gen etic h y p o th esis”
Je n sen m eans a strictly genetic ex p la n a tio n , yet it is clear from th e rest o f
his artic le th a t he is referrin g only to a hypo th esis in w hich th e re is so m e
gen etic d e te rm in a tio n . T hus, resp o n d e n ts w ho believe th a t th ere is som e
g en etic c o m p o n e n t to racial differences in IQ, b u t w ho m isin te rp re t th e
q u o ta tio n , will be inclin ed to disagree.
N o d o u b t m a n y readers are w ond erin g at th is p o in t, “ W hy b o th e r stu d y
ing g ro u p differences in IQ? O u r society m u st still tre a t each p erso n as an
in d iv id u al w ith regard to ed u c atio n al a n d o cc u p atio n al o p p o rtu n ity , an d
g ro u p differences are irrelevant." It is tru e th a t we m ay n ev er w ish to m ak e
im p o rta n t decisions on th e basis o f g ro u p m em b ersh ip , b u t it is precisely
because we are in te reste d in in d iv id u al lib erties irresp ectiv e o f race a n d
class th a t we need to know why, fo r exam ple, blacks are o v errep resen ted in
classes for th e m e n tally retard ed , o r u n d e rre p re se n te d in h ig h er e d u c atio n
o r in c e rta in professions. If these differences are in p a rt genetic, o r if th ey
are th e result o f e n v iro n m e n ta l factors o u tsid e th e test, sh o u tin g “b ia s.”
a n d settin g up a q u o ta system w henever blacks d o p o o rly o n a test obscures
a search for real solutions.
130
The IQ Controversy
M any critics believe th a t th e study o f race a n d class differences in IQ is
n o t necessarily irrelev an t, b u t d a n g e ro u s.55 It is m a in ta in e d th a t an y p rac
tical co n seq u e n ces th a t m ay be the result o f such research are far o u t
w eighed by th e possible negative social effects. T h e ex istence o f genetic
differences in intelligence, o r even th e ir possibility, m ay be used to re in
force existing social in e q u itie s a n d to p ro p ag a te a d d itio n a l racial a n d eco
n o m ic oppression. In fact, even a co m p letely e n v iro n m e n ta l e x p lan a tio n
can lead o n e to tro u b le w ith these critics, as S carr a n d W einberg have been
accused o f “ b la m in g th e v ic tim ,” by a ttrib u tin g th e black IQ d e c re m e n t to
black c u ltu re .56 M oreover, th e re is the H ow ard a n d H a m m o n d arg u m e n t
th a t discussions o f genetic differences p ro fo u n d ly affect black in tellectu al
p erfo rm an ce .
S cie n tists w ho d iscu ss possible e x p la n a tio n s o f racial a n d class d if
ferences in IQ are accused o f ignoring th e m o ral issue o f th e social c o n
seq u en ces o f th e ir w ork. C ritics differ, however, in th e degree to w h ich th ey
are w illing to a ttrib u te racist se n tim e n ts to th e in v estig ato rs them selves. A
c o m m o n tactic, m e n tio n e d previously, is to arg u e for a h isto rical c o n
tin u u m betw een ea rlier racist philo so p h ies a n d m o d e rn in v estig atio n s o f
in d iv id u al an d g ro u p differences— th e p olitics o f scien ce.57 At th e very
least, it is asserted, tho se w ho w ould n o t have th e ir w ork used to su p p o rt
racist an d elitist social policies m u st be extrem ely c a u tio u s in p u ttin g fo rth
h y potheses a b o u t racial a n d class differences, lest th e re be m is in te rp re ta
tio n .58 In an ideal w orld, such c o n jec tu re an d in v estig atio n w ould cease
altogether.
T h o se in favor o f investigating gro u p differences reply th a t science an d
p olitics, w hile often in te rc o n n e c te d , are n o t th e sam e th in g . Science is, a n d
sh o u ld be, c o n c e rn e d p rim a rily w ith th e discovery o f facts. W hile m a n y o f
these facts have social co n seq u en ces, such co n seq u e n ces d o n o t follow
directly from th e facts them selves, b u t d ep e n d critically o n c e rta in social
values th a t are in d e p e n d e n t o f sc ien tific in v e stig a tio n .59 T h e scien tist
sh o u ld not, however, be u n aw are o f th e possible co n seq u e n ces o f his w ork,
a n d sho u ld exercise c a u tio n w hen p u ttin g fo rth p o litically d an g e ro u s hy
potheses. Scientific know ledge, in an d o f itself, is a good th in g , a n d th is is
p a rtic u la rly tru e w hen th a t know ledge c o n c e rn s h u m a n behavior. In th e
long ru n , it is b e tte r to know all th a t we can a b o u t in d iv id u al a n d g ro u p
differences in socially relev an t traits, a n d to base social policy o n facts, th a n
to rely on o u r often biased conjectures.
The Politics o f Expert Opinion
D espite th e desires o f m a n y to keep th e scientific a n d p o litical realm s
sep arate, scientists lead lives o u tsid e th e la b o ra to ry a n d th e library, an d
th e ir o p in io n s a b o u t scientific issues in ev itab ly will be in flu en ced by fac
131
to rs e x tern al to th e d ata. It has been o u r ho p e th a t by surv ey in g ex p erts we
will o b ta in an assessm ent o f th e “ facts” a b o u t testing th a t is less ta in te d by
e x tra n e o u s m o tiv a tio n s th a n has hereto fo re been th e case. O u r w ishes
n o tw ith stan d in g , p olitics necessarily will co lo r o p in io n s a b o u t p olitically
charged issues.
N ow here is this clearer th a n w hen d ealing w ith g ro u p differences in test
score. To m a in ta in th a t th e b la c k -w h ite an d SES IQ differentials are m e a n
ingful, even w hen th e d a ta a p p e a r to p o in t th a t way, is to directly c o n tra d ic t
th e egalitarian eth ic th a t all m en are created equal an d th a t th e plight o f
m in o rities is en tirely th e fault o f oppressors. S cientists w h o cross th a t line,
e ith e r in arguing th a t tests are unb iased , o r w orse, in h y p o th esizin g th a t
genetic factors m ay be involved will m eet w ith d isa p p ro b a tio n from b o th
th e general p u b lic an d from o th e r scientists. Je n sen a n d H e rrn s te in w ere
w idely castigated by th e ex p e rt co m m u n ity , yet th e m a jo rity o f ex p e rt
resp o n d e n ts agree w ith th e Je n sen an d H e rrn s te in p o sitio n s o n genetics
an d g ro u p differences. W hen scientists e n te r th e p ub lic realm , th e resp o n se
th ey receive from th e ir fellows is as m u ch in flu en ced by th e p o litical as th e
em p irica l c o n te n t o f th e ir statem en ts.
In light o f th e way Jen sen an d o th e rs have been trea ted , we w on d ered
how ex p erts feel a b o u t th e ir m o re contro v ersial an d higher profile co l
leagues. R e sp o n d en ts w ere p resen ted w ith a list o f fo u rte en social scien
tis ts , sh o w n in T a b le 4 .1 , w h o h av e w r itte n a b o u t in te llig e n c e o r
intelligence testing, a n d asked to in d ic ate th e ir respect for th e a u th o r ’s
relev an t w ork. R atings w ere m ad e on a 7 - p o in t scale, w here 1 was “ Very
low reg a rd ” an d 7 was “ Very high regard.”
Six o f th e listed scientists (B u rt, E ysenck, G o u ld , H e rrn s te in , Jen sen ,
a n d K am in ) have been p ro m in e n t in th e pu b lic co n tro v ersy over testing,
p articu la rly g ro u p differences an d the supposed racism in h e re n t in the
tests. T h e re m a in d e r are w ell-k n o w n p sy c h o m etric ia n s w ho have generally
stayed clear o f th e fray. R esponse rates vary con sid erab ly across a u th o rs,
b u t seem m o re a fu n ctio n o f fam iliarity th a n o f th e a u th o r ’s p o sitio n on
an y issue. T h e c o n tro v e rsial a u th o rs, d esp ite d iffe rin g w idely in th e ir
stan ces tow ard testing, are all rate d low er (w ith greater v arian ce) th a n th o se
psychologists n o t p ro m in e n tly involved in th e p u b lic d eb ate. T h a t C yril
B u rt sh o u ld be rated m u c h low er th a n all o f th e o th e r a u th o rs is u n d e r
sta n d ab le in light o f th e rev elatio n s a b o u t him after his d ea th . S o m ew h at
less u n d e rsta n d a b le , co n sid erin g responses to o th e r q u estio n s in th e survey,
b u t co n sisten t w ith th e pu b lic reco rd , th e co ntroversial a u th o rs w ho co u ld
be labeled p ro -te s tin g (B u rt, E ysenck, H e rrn s te in , an d Je n sen ) are all rated
below th e tw o a n ti- te s tin g scien tists (G o u ld a n d K am in ). (T h ese d if
ferences are significant [p < .01, 2 -ta ile d ] for B urt, E ysenck, an d Jen sen ;
H e rrn ste in d oes n o t d o significantly w orse th a n G o u ld o r K am in .)
132
The IQ Controversy
TABLE 4.1
Author Ratings
Author
Anne Anastasi
Cyril Burt
Raymond Cattell
Lee Cronbach
Hans Eysenck
Stephen J. Gould
J. P. Guilford
Richard Herrnstein
Lloyd Humphreys
A rthur Jensen
Leon Kamin
Robert L. Thorndike
Philip Vernon
David Wechsler
Mean Respect
Rating“
5.8
( LI ) 6
2.43
(1.61)
5.14
(1.33)
5.89
( LI )
4.33
(1.56)
4.45
(1.73)
5.55
(1.18)
4.14
(1.71)
5.17
(1.29)
3.68
(1.83)
4.36
(1.61)
5.57
(1.21)
5.21
(1.18)
5.72
(1.16)
% Responding
78.2
72.3
81.7
82.6
68.4
35.7
82.6
44.6
42.5
87.1
39.6
83.6
37.8
86.7
a| ~ “Wry low regard," 7 — “Very high regard.” bNumbers in parentheses are standard
deviations.
T h e low er ratings for th e p u b lic figures m ay be a ttrib u te d to a g eneral
d istaste for p o p u la riz a tio n a n d p u b lic co n tro v ersy am o n g th e ex p e rt p o p u
la tio n . T h e difference betw een th e p r o - a n d a n ti-te s tin g scien tists is n o t so
easily explain ed . F or o n e thing, the m o re highly rate d n o n co n tro v e rsial
a u th o rs are all ac cu rately ch a racterize d as p ro -te stin g . M oreover, re sp o n d
en ts te n d to agree w ith E ysenck, H e rrn s te in , a n d Je n se n o n th e g ro u p
difference issues (belief in a genetic influence o n b o th race a n d SES d if
ferences in IQ are significantly positively c o rre la te d w ith ratin g s fo r these
au th o rs). T he a b u n d a n c e o f very low ratin g s for th o se w h o p u b licly p o s tu
late genetic influences on g ro u p differences th u s seem s to reflect th e views
133
o f b o th tho se w ho disagree w ith these p o sitio n s an d th o se w ho m ay agree
b u t believe c e rta in things are b e tte r left u nsaid, at least publicly.
B oth th e m ean an d varian ce o f ratings for contro v ersial a u th o rs in d icate
th a t these ratings are related to factors o th e r th a n th e c o n te n t o f th e a u
th o rs’ w ork. O u r h y pothesis is th a t ex p e rt o p in io n s o n all th e q u estio n s
c o n c e rn in g g ro u p differences are related to th e political p erspective o f th e
resp o n d en ts. T h e d ile m m a (d isju n c tio n o f realm s) betw een th e d a ta on
g ro u p differences a n d p olitical b elief faced by a liberal psychologist m u st be
greater th a n th a t faced by a conservative, w ho m ig h t be m o re in c lin e d to
value efficiency over eq u a lity o f o u tco m e.
Political perspective was assessed in tw o ways. F irst, re sp o n d e n ts stated
th e ir ag re em e n t o r d isa g re em en t w ith a series o f six p o litical statem en ts.
T h e sta te m e n ts dealin g w ith U .S. e c o n o m ic ex p lo ita tio n , th e fairn ess o f th e
p riv ate en terp rise system , affirm ative ac tio n , th e d esirab ility o f socialism ,
a lie n a tio n caused by th e stru c tu re o f society, a n d th e p ro p rie ty o f ex tra
m a rital sexual relations. R esponses to these sta te m e n ts w ere discovered, in
a p rev io u s investigation in c o rp o ra tin g m a n y m o re such sta te m en ts, to load
highly on a facto r rep resen tin g overall p olitical p ersp ectiv e.60 A g reem en t
w as assessed on a 4 - p o in t scale, w here 1 w as “ S trongly agree” an d 4 was
“ S trongly disagree.” F or four o f th e six sta te m en ts, th e m e an resp o n se is
ap p ro x im ate ly a t indifference. R e sp o n d en ts are so m ew h at m o re likely to
disagree th a t “T h e U n ite d States w ould be b e tte r off if it m oved to w ard
so c ialism ” a n d th a t “ T h e stru c tu re o f o u r society causes m o st people to feel
alien ated .” T h e second m easu re o f political perspective asked ex p erts to
in d ic ate th e ir global p olitical perspective on a 7 - p o in t scale, w here 1 was
“ Very lib eral” a n d 7 was “ Very conservative." M ean se lf-a ssessm en t on
th is scale is 3.19 (s.d. = 1.28, r.r. = 95.6%), p u ttin g th is ex p e rt p o p u la tio n
slightly to th e left o f center.
F acto r analysis o f responses to th e six sta te m e n ts a n d th e global ratin g
reveal th a t all q u estio n s, w ith th e ex ception o f th e sta te m e n t a b o u t e x tra
m arital affairs, load highly on a single facto r (i.e., are highly co rrelated ).
T h e five sta te m e n ts an d the global ratin g w ere th erefo re n o rm alize d an d
c o m b in e d to fo rm a political perspective su pervariab le. It is th is variable
th a t is used as a m easure o f overall p olitical perspective. N o te th a t the
liberal po sitio n on the five in c lu d ed sta te m e n ts (e.g., b elief in socialism ,
affirm ative ac tio n , e c o n o m ic ex p lo ita tio n ) ca n all be ch a racterize d as p la c
ing a higher value on eq u ality o f o u tc o m e th a n on ec o n o m ic efficiency.
T h e next c h a p te r c o n ta in s a d etailed discussion o f th e rela tio n sh ip b e
tw een political perspective an d o th e r d em o g ra p h ic an d b ac k g ro u n d v aria
bles, a n d su b stan tiv e q u estio n responding. It is w o rth n o tin g here th a t
political perspective is not significantly related to responses to m o st su b
134
The IQ Controversy
sta n tiv e q u estio n s. T h e ex cep tio n s in c lu d e a h an d fu l o f q u estio n s o n th e
n a tu re o f intelligence an d heritability, as well as several q u estio n s o n test
use a n d m isuse (discussed in th e next chapter), a n d a ll o f th e q u e s tio n s
dealin g w ith g ro u p differences discussed in th is chapter. F or every so u rce o f
bias e x a m in e d (q u estio n s 12-16), th e re is a significant positive c o rre la tio n
betw een liberalism a n d a m o u n t o f bias a ttrib u te d to tests, a resu lt th a t
m ak es th e d iscrep an cy betw een the bias ratin g s a n d o u r review o f th e
em p irical lite ra tu re m o re u n d ersta n d ab le. C onserv ativ es are significantly
m o re likely th a n liberals to believe th a t genes play a cau sal role in race an d
class differences in IQ, a n d rate B urt, E ysenck, H e rrn s te in , a n d Je n sen
higher. L iberals, on th e o th e r h an d , are m o re favorably d isposed to G o u ld
a n d K am in th a n are conservatives.
G ro u p differences in IQ are th e d riv in g force b eh in d th e IQ co n tro v ersy
a n d rem a in its m o st sensitive topic. T h o se w ho a tta c k tests usually begin
w ith th is issue; tho se w ho d efend th em usually shy away from it. E x p erts
surveyed in d icate th a t th e re is som e bias in intellig en ce a n d a p titu d e tests,
b u t th a t it is insufficient to a c c o u n t fo r th e to ta lity o f g ro u p differences in
test score. M ost re sp o n d e n ts are o f th e o p in io n th a t gen etic factors as well
as en v iro n m e n ta l differences c o n trib u te to th e b la c k -w h ite a n d SES dif
feren tials in IQ. T hese d a ta are n o t, however, an a c cu rate re p re se n ta tio n o f
th e coldly ratio n al scientific view. T h e U n ite d S tates has suffered th ro u g h a
long an d ugly h isto ry o f racism , an d the past th irty years has seen th e rise o f
a new eg alitarian ethic. In its w ake, th e re are c e rta in to p ics th a t m a n y
scientists are unw illing to discuss publicly, a n d a b o u t w hich th ey c a n n o t be
to ta lly objective.
N otes
1. Lee Willerman, The Psychology o f Individual and Group Differences (San Fran
cisco: W. H. Freeman, 1979), pp. 465-474.
2. Eleanor Emmons Maccoby and Carol Nagy Jacklin, The Psychology o f Sex
Differences (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), pp. 63—133; A rthur R.
Jensen, Bias in M ental Testing (New York: Free Press, 1980), pp. 622-628.
3. A rthur R. Jensen, “The Race X Sex X Ability Interaction,” in Intelligence:
Genetic and Environmental Influences, ed. R. Cancro (New York: G rune and
Stratton, 1971), p. 136.
4. Audrey M. Shuey, The Testing o f Negro Intelligence 2nd ed. (New York: Social
Science Press, 1966); R. Travis Osborne and Frank C. J. McGurk, The Testing
o f Negro Intelligence, Vol. 2 (Athens, GA: The Foundation for Human Under
standing, 1982).
5. John C. Loehlin, G ardner Lindzey, and J. N. Spuhler, Race Differences in
Intelligence (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975), p. 235.
6. Ibid.; A rthur R. Jensen, “The Nature of the Black-W hite Difference on Various
Psychometric Tests: Spearman’s Hypothesis,” The Behavioral and Brain Sci
ences & (June 1985): 193-263.
135
7. Loehlin et al.. p. 235.
8. Christopher Jencks et al.. Inequality (New York: Basic Books, 1972). p. 144;
Christopher Jencks et al.. Who Gets Ahead? (New York: Basic Books. 1979), p.
121
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
.
Jenson. Bias, p. 44.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 43.
Ibid.. p. 635.
Ibid.. pp. 570-571; Anne Anastasi, Psychological Testing, 5th ed. (New York:
Macmillan. 1982). pp. 284-285.
14. J. H. Court. Researchers' Bibliography for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and
M ill Hill Vocabulary Scales, 3d ed. (Adelaide, Australia: Flinders University,
1976).
15. Jensen. Bias, p. 704.
16. Langdon E. Longstreth. "Jensen’s Reaction Time Investigations of Intelligence:
A Critique,” Intelligence 8 (April-June 1984): 139-160.
17. Jensen. Bias, pp. 635-714.
18. Philip Vernon. Intelligence: Heredity and Environment (San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman, 1979). p. 310.
19. So too can a test be highly culture specific and invalid. Psychologist Robert
Williams has developed a test he calls the BITCH (Black Intelligence Test of
Cultural Homogeneity), designed to be a culture-specific test on which blacks
outperform whites. See Robert L. Williams, The B ITC H Test (St. Louis, MO:
Black Studies Program. Washington University, 1972). Dr. Williams accom
plished his objective; the test consists entirely of vocabulary questions con
cerning black slang. Unfortunately, perform ance on the test has not been
demonstrated to correlate significantly with any other criterion of intelligence.
See Jensen. Bias, pp. 679-681.
20. Adapted from Ronald L. Flaugher, “The Many Definitions of Test Bias," Amer
ican Psychologist 33 (July 1978):671—679.
22. Vernon, p. 265; but see Jensen, Bias, pp. 530-533.
23. F. Miele. “Cultural Bias in the W1SC," Intelligence 3 (1979): 149-164.
24. Frank C. J. McGurk, “ Race Differences—Twenty Years Later,” Homo 26
(1975):219-239.
26. Ibid., pp. 465-516; Robert Linn. “Ability Testing: Individual Differences, Pre
diction and Differential Prediction,” in Ability Testing: Uses, Consequences,
and Controversies, part II, eds. Alexandra K. Wigdor and Wendell R. G arner
(Washington. DC: National Academy Press, 1982), pp. 335-388; John E.
Hunter, Frank L. Schmidt, and Ronda Hunter, “Differential Validity of Em
ployment Tests bv Race: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis,” Psychologi
cal Bulletin 86 ( 1979):721-735.
27. John E. H unter and Frank L. Schmidt, “A Critical Analysis of the Statistical
and Ethical Implications of Five Definitions of Test Fairness,” Psychological
Bulletin 83 (1976): 1053-1071.
29. N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin, “IQ, Heritability, and Inequality,” in The IQ
Controversy, eds. N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin (New York: Pantheon Books,
1976), p. 455.
136
The IQ Controversy
30. Jeff Howard and Ray Hamm ond, “Rumors of Inferiority,” New Republic 3686
(September 9, 1985): 17-21.
31. Ibid., p. 19.
32. Melvin Konner, The Tangled Wing (New York: Harper Colophon, 1983), p.
400.
33. Stephen Jay Gould, The M ismeasure o f Man (New York: W. W. Norton, 1981);
Various, Science fo r the People 6 (March 1974); Various, Biology as Destiny:
Science Fact or Social Bias? (Cambridge, MA: Science for the People, 1984).
34. A rthur R. Jensen, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achieve
ment?" Harvard Educational Review 39 (Winter 1969):80.
35. Richard Lewontin. “Race and Intelligence,” Bulletin o f the Atom ic Scientists
(March 1970):2-8.
36. Ibid.. p. 7.
37. A rthur R. Jensen, Educability and Group Differences (New York: Harper &
Row, 1973).
38. W. F. Bodmer and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, “Intelligence and Race,” Scientific
American 223 (1970): 19-29; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetic Diversity and
H uman Equality (New York: Basic Books, 1973); N. E. M orton, “H um an
Behavioral G enetics,” in Genetics, Environm ent, and Behavior, eds. L.
Ehrman, G. S. Omenn, and E. Caspari (New York: Academic Press, 1972).
39. E. M. Lawrence, “An Investigation Into the Relation Between Intelligence and
Inheritance,” British Journal o f Psychology, M onograph Supplem ents 16
(1931).
40. Alice M. Leahy, “ N atu re-N u rtu re and Intelligence,” Genetic Psychology
Monographs 17 (1935):235—308.
41. Bruce C. Eckland, “Social Class Structure and the Genetic Basis of Intel
ligence,” in Intelligence: Genetic and Environmental Influences, ed. R. Cancro
(New York: G rune and Stratton, 1971), pp. 65-76.
42. The same organization placed a half-page ad in the October 18, 1973, New
York Times, in which the “doctrine of racial supremacy” espoused by Jensen,
Eysenck, Herrnstein, and Shockley is equated with that of the Nazis.
43. Sandra Scarr, Race, Social Class, and Individual Differences in IQ (Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981).
44. Loehlin et al.
45. Vernon, pp. 242-332.
46. A rthur R. Jensen, “Obstacles, Problems, and Pitfalls in Differential Psychol
ogy,” in Race, Social Class, and Individual Differences in IQ, ed. Sandra Scarr
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981).
47. R. Darrell Bock and Elsie G. J. Moore, Profile o f American Youth: Demographic
Influences on ASVAB Test Performance (Washington, DC: Government Print
ing Office, 1984), pp. 268-271; Brian Mackenzie, “Explaining Race Differences
in IQ: The Logic, the Methodology, and the Evidence,” 39 (Novem ber
1984): 1214—1233.
48. Vernon, p. 267.
49. Jensen, Educability.
50. Jensen, “Obstacles.”
51. Scarr; Willerman, pp. 462-465.
52. Sandra Scarr and Richard A. Weinberg, “IQ Test Performance of Black Chil
dren Adopted by White Families,” American Psychologist 31 (1976):726—739.
53. Scarr.
137
54. Robert W. Friedrichs, “The Impact of Social Factors Upon Scientific Judgment:
The ‘Jensen Thesis’ as Appraised by Members of the American Psychological
Association,” Journal o f Negro Education 42 (197 3):429—438.
55. e.g.,Block and Dworkin; Noam Chomsky, “Psychology and Ideology,” Cogni
tion 1 (1972): 11-46; Jerry Hirsch, “Behavior-Genetic Analysis and Its Bio
social Consequences,” Sem inars in Psychiatry 2 (1970):89—105; Leon J.
Kamin, The Science and Politics o f IQ (Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum,
1974).
56. C. W. Oden Jr. and W. S. MacDonald, “The RIP in Social Scientific Reporting,”
American Psychologist 33 (1978):952—954.
57. e.g., Kamin; Clarence J. Karier, “Testing for Order and Control in the Corpo
rate Liberal State,” in The IQ Controversy, eds. N. J. Block and Gerald
Dworkin (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), pp. 339-373.
58. Block and Dworkin, p. 517.
59. Jensen, “Obstacles.”
60. Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, “Personality, Ideology, and World
View: A Comparison of Media and Business Elites,” British Journal o f Political
Science 15 (1984):29-44.
5
The Impact of Intelligence Testing
Intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests m easu re sam ples o f behavior, acq u ired
u n d e r specific c o n d itio n s in a relatively sh o rt p erio d o f tim e, th a t m ay be
used to m ake p red ic tio n s a b o u t b eh a v io r in a larger co n tex t. Test scores tell
us how in d iv id u als diifer from o n e a n o th e r in th e d o m a in o f in tellectu al
fu n ctio n in g . T hey are often used as to o ls to aid decision m ak in g in such
areas as cu rric u lu m p la cem en t, diagnosis for special ed u c atio n , e d u c a
tio n a l an d career counseling, college adm issions, a n d th e h irin g a n d p ro
m o tio n o f e m p lo y e e s . In a s o c ie ty w h e re th e r e is c o m p e titio n fo r
e d u c a tio n a l a n d o cc u p atio n al resources, th e ho p e has been th a t tests can
aid in th e efficient d istrib u tio n o f these resources ac co rd in g to in tellectu al
m erit, ra th e r th a n w ealth o r ancestry.
C o n c e rn s a b o u t w hat tests are m easu rin g , a b o u t racial a n d class d if
ferences in test scores, an d a b o u t how these scores are b eing used have led
m a n y to q u estio n th e usefulness o f intelligence tests as gatekeepers. T h e
im p a ct o f tests on th e ed u c a tio n a n d o c c u p a tio n s o f A m eric an s has co m e
u n d e r in creasing attack . M a rtin H o lm e n an d R ich ard D o cte r identify w hat
th ey call th e “ce n tral critic ism ” o f testing:
At the heart of criticisms about tests and testing programs is one fact that is
likely to help perpetuate at least some of the criticism: tests are often used as
tools for the allocation of limited resources or opportunities. Put another
way, educational and psychological tests are frequently designed to measure
differences among individuals so that one person recieves a reward or priv
ilege which another person is then denied.1
F or m a n y critics o f testing, a n d o th e r firm believers in a liberal d e m o
cra tic state, policies w hich allo cate m a n y o f society ’s m o st p recio u s re
sources, at least in p a rt, acco rd in g to o n e ’s answ ers on a b rie f m u ltip le ch oice exam are very d istu rb in g . T h is is p articu la rly tru e w hen these tests
are seen as cu ltu rally biased an d o f lim ited app licab ility to rea l-w o rld
139
140
The IQ Controversy
behavior. Tests on ly m a tte r to th e ex ten t th a t they are used. T h u s, p erh ap s
th e m o st im p o rta n t q u estio n we can ask a b o u t in tellig en ce tests is “ W h at
good are they?” W h at effect d o these tests have on th o se w ho are co m p etin g
for lim ited resources, a n d on th e rest o f us w ho m u st live in th e society th u s
created? T h is ch a p te r will discuss, in th e c o n te x t o f ex p e rt o p in io n , so m e o f
th e uses an d abuses o f intelligence an d a p titu d e tests, as well as th e q u e s
tio n o f w h eth e r these tests offer an y ad v a n ta g e over o th e r g atek eep in g
m ethods. We will be c o n c e rn e d w ith th e th re e p rim a ry uses for intelligence
a n d a p titu d e testing: th e in d iv id u aliza tio n o f e d u c a tio n in e le m e n ta ry a n d
se co n d a ry schools, ad m issio n to schools o f higher ed u c a tio n , an d em p lo y
m e n t testing. Tests have proven useful in each o f these co n tex ts, b u t th e
p o te n tia l for abuse is also great, as tests are used a n d in te rp re te d in a p
p ro p ria te ly by tho se w ith o u t an a d e q u a te u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e ir fu n ctio n s
a n d lim ita tio n s. T h e tra d e o ff betw een efficiency a n d th e p o te n tia l fo r abuse
has been a ce n tral c o n c e rn in litigation, legislation, a n d execu tiv e policy
c o n c e rn in g intelligence an d a p titu d e tests.
In ad d itio n to these issues, th e last section o f th e c h a p te r will discuss d a ta
o n th e d em o g ra p h ic an d b ac k g ro u n d ch aracteristics o f th e survey re sp o n d
en ts as they relate to su b stan tiv e q u e stio n respon d in g .
Intelligence and Aptitude Testing in Elem entary and Secondary Sch ools
T h e past ten years have seen several a tte m p ts o m easu re th e n a tu re an d
ex ten t o f intelligence an d a p titu d e test use in U .S. sch o o ls.2 T h e resu lts o f
th ese surveys are n o t always co n sisten t, as th e re are significant differences
in survey sam ples an d th e p h rasin g o f q u estio n s. N o n eth eless, it ap p e ars
th a t betw een o n e - h a lf a n d tw o -th ird s o f all p u b lic school d istricts a d m in
ister g ro u p intelligence o r a p titu d e tests to all stu d e n ts at least o n ce d u rin g
th e p eriod betw een k in d e rg a rte n an d tw elfth grade. Two facts seem clear
a b o u t these d ata. First, th ey rep resen t a d eclin e in test use o ver th e p rev io u s
te n o r tw enty years. In C h a p te r 1 we m e n tio n e d th e resu lts o f tw o n a tio n
w ide surveys, c o n d u c te d by th e A k ron P ublic Schools, o f la rg e -c ity an d
- c o u n ty test directors. T h e A k ro n surveys fo u n d th a t in c e rta in grade
levels, th e use o f g ro u p tests had d ec lin ed fro m 100 p erc en t in th e 1964
survey to less th a n 40 p erc en t in 1978.3 (T h e p ercen tag es fo r 1978 test use
in th is survey rep rese n t test use d u rin g on ly th ree school years; o th e r su r
veys th a t in c lu d e all e le m e n ta ry an d se co n d a ry grades g enerally in d ic ate
usage in excess o f fifty p erc en t.) Sim ilarly, in a stratified ra n d o m survey o f
over 5,000 A m eric an p u b lic high school stu d e n ts c o n d u c te d in 1963 a n d
1964, O rville B rim a n d his associates fo u n d th a t 78 p erc en t o f stu d e n ts
w ere co n fid e n t th ey h ad ta k e n a t least o n e intelligence test d u rin g th e ir
lifetim e.4 N o n e o f th e rec en t surveys o f test use in d ic ate p ercen tag es th is
141
high. T h e decrease in test use stem s from a declin e in tra c k in g (ability
g ro u ping) in e le m e n ta ry an d se co n d a ry schools co u p led w ith an increasin g
p erc ep tio n th a t w ith o u t a specific ap p lica tio n like trac k in g in fo rm a tio n
a b o u t th e general level o f intelligence o r a p titu d e o f m o st stu d e n ts is a
relatively useless su p p le m e n t to school grades a n d a c h ie v em e n t test scores.
T h e second im p o rta n t fact a b o u t th e use o f gro u p in telligence a n d a p
titu d e tests to be gleaned from these surveys is th a t th e level o f actu al test
usage is far below th e frequency o f test a d m in istra tio n . Beverly A n d erso n ,
in a survey o f test use in fo u rte en w estern states p u b lish ed in 1982, esti
m ates th a t a b o u t tw o -th ird s o f th e school d istric ts in th ese states a d m in
ister g ro u p a p titu d e tests, b u t th a t a b o u t h a lf o f these d o so as a resu lt o f
p u b lic pressure o r school b o ard policy, an d seldom o r n ev er use th e resu lts.5
A 1979 N atio n w id e T eacher O p in io n Poll c o n d u c te d by th e N atio n al E d u
ca tio n A ssociation (N E A ) fo u n d th a t 64 p erc en t o f te ach ers h ad used g ro u p
in telligence test score, an d 59 p e rc e n t h ad used g ro u p a p titu d e test scores,
d u rin g th e p rev io u s th ree years, b u t only 39 p erc en t o f each g ro u p h ad
fo u n d these scores in any way helpful.6 In th e absen ce o f specific ap p lic a
tio n s, teach ers a n d g u id an ce co u n selo rs find a p titu d e an d in telligence test
scores o f lim ited usefulness.
O ne ap p lica tio n w here intelligence tests c o n tin u e to b e useful is in diag
nosis a n d sp e c ia l-e d u c a tio n p lan n in g . T h is was, o f course, th e fu n c tio n o f
th e original B in e t-S im o n scale. In cases w here a s tu d e n t is having ex tre m e
difficulty in th e classroom , it is co m m o n p ractice to use in d iv id u ally a d
m in iste re d intelligence tests, in c o n ju n c tio n w ith a h o st o f o th e r tests an d
assessm ent devices, to diagnose th e stu d e n t's p a rtic u la r p ro b lem s an d to
help ta ilo r a c u rric u lu m to th e stu d e n t’s needs. T h u s, in d iv id u ally a d m in
istered intelligence tests c o n tin u e to be w idely used in special ed u c a tio n in
elem e n ta ry an d se co n d a ry schools. A n d erso n fo u n d su ch usage to be c o m
m o n in all th e w estern school d istric ts surveyed,7 th o u g h h er survey was
c o n d u c te d before th e 1984 ap p ellate decision ex ten d in g th e L a rry P. d ec i
sion to seven w estern states.
A cc o m p an y in g th e use o f intelligence a n d ap titu d e tests in schools is a
lack o f test so p h istica tio n by teachers. D avid G o slin ’s 1967 stratified r a n
d o m survey o f a p p ro x im a te ly 1,500 e le m e n ta ry a n d se c o n d a ry sch o o l
teach ers fo u n d th a t m o st had ta k e n eith er n o o r o nly o n e g rad u a te o r
u n d e rg ra d u a te course related to psychological m e a su re m e n t, an d th a t very
few h ad ever a tte n d e d a clinic o r m eetin g in w hich th ey h ad been in stru c ted
in th e use of, o r th e o ry b eh in d , sta n d ard iz ed tests.8 A 1979 survey o f A m er
ican F ed eratio n o f T eachers (A F T ) m em b ers by Ja m es W ard fo u n d the
s itu a tio n little im proved; o n e in five had n o fo rm a l college tra in in g in
testin g an d m e asu rem en t, a n d only one in th ree received any fu rth e r tr a in
ing w hile te ac h in g .9 A n o th e r recent survey o f sch o o lteach ers fo u n d th a t
142
The IQ Controversy
m a n y did n o t know th e m e an in g o f p ercen tiles in score re p o rtin g .10 M o st
o f G o slin ’s te ach ers a d m itte d having little o r no know ledge o f w h at th e
follow ing tests m easure: W ISC, D ifferential A p titu d e Tests, C a lifo rn ia Test
o f M en tal M aturity, a n d L o rg e -T h o rn d ik e Intelligence Tests. T h is d esp ite
th e fact th a t tw o -th ird s o f th e high schools an d a g rea ter p ercen tag e o f
e le m e n ta ry sch o o ls su rveyed re p o rte d giving g ro u p a d m in is te re d in te l
ligence tests to at least so m e o f th e ir stu d en ts. T h e b u lk o f te ac h ers re
p o rte d no ex p erien ce w ith ac tu a l test a d m in istra tio n , as th is was g enerally
h an d led by co u n selo rs an d o th e r a d m in istra to rs w ith m o re testin g ex p er
tise.
T h a t m o st e le m e n ta ry a n d se c o n d a ry scho o ls still a d m in is te r in te l
ligence a n d a p titu d e tests, co u p led w ith a n a p p a re n t lack o f real u n d e r
sta n d in g o n th e p a rt o f te ac h ers o f w h at intellig en ce tests are m easu rin g ,
creates th e p o te n tia l fo r abuse o f testing. T h o u g h such in stan ces are diffi
c u lt to d o c u m e n t statistically, th e follow ing is a p a rtia l list o f so m e o f th e
abu ses observed by tho se fam iliar w ith testin g p ractices in sc h o o ls:11
•
F ailure to give a d e q u a te in stru c tio n s o r to follow p rescrib ed tim e lim its
in test ad m in istra tio n .
• A d m in istra tio n u n d e r c o n d itio n s o f in a d e q u a te lig h tin g a n d /o r v en tila
tio n , o r w ith o th e r d istra c tio n s to clea r th in k in g a n d w riting.
• A cceptance o f test scores as ab so lu te m easu res o f a p titu d e o r in te l
ligence, w ith o u t an u n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e p ro b a b ilis tic a n d lim ite d
n a tu re o f leg itim ate pred ictio n s.
• U se o f E n g lish -la n g u ag e test results for lo n g -ra n g e p red ic tio n s c o n
ce rn in g stu d e n ts for w h o m E nglish is a secon d language.
• C o m p a riso n o f test scores betw een stu d e n ts w hile ig n o rin g th e lim ita
tio n s placed o n such c o m p a riso n s by th e te st’s reliab ility a n d m e asu re
m e n t error.
•
•
C o m p a riso n o f a p titu d e a n d a c h ie v em e n t test scores as a m easu re o f
u n d e r - o r o v erach iev em en t, w hile ign o rin g test reliab ility a n d m e asu re
m e n t e rro r an d differences in th e d o m a in s o f ab ility covered by each
test. (A n d erso n an d o th e rs have fo u n d such co m p a riso n s to be th e m o st
c o m m o n use o f g ro u p -a d m in is te re d a p titu d e test scores, besides tra c k
ing, in school d istricts w here these scores are still ta k e n seriously.)12
U se o f tests in m ak in g decisions for w hich th ey have lim ite d o r u n k n o w n
validity.
19. F requency o f test m isuse.
It is n o t u n c o m m o n for th o se w ho are o therw ise su p p o rte rs o f s ta n d a rd
ized te stin g to c o m p la in a b o u t m isu se a n d m is in te rp r e ta tio n o f te st
sc o re s.13 T h is q u estio n assesses exp ert o p in io n o f th e p rev alen ce o f erro rs
143
TABLE 5.1
Intelligence Test Misuse in Elementary and Secondary Schools
M ea n P revalence
Source
Administration under improper conditions, such as
failure to follow prescribed time limits, or in an
environment with significant distractors
Use of English language test results for long-range
predictions concerning students for whom English
is a second language
Comparison of test scores among students, while ig
noring limitations set by test reliability and
measurement error
Comparison of intelligence and achievement test
scores as a measure of under- or overachieve
ment. while ignoring test reliability and
measurement error, and differences in test domain
Use of tests in making decisions for which they have
limited or unknown validity
Rating“ % Responding
2.2
(.664)b
76.9
2.41
(.74)
71.4
2.8
(.76)
80.3
2.88
(.736)
79.3
2.75
(.747)
80.8
al = " R a re ly p re s e n t,” 2 = "S o m e tim e s p re s e n t.” 3 = “ O fte n p re s e n t," a n d 4 =
alw ays p resen t.” bN u m b e rs in p a re n th e se s a re sta n d a rd d e v ia tio n s.
“A lm o st
in test use in e le m e n ta ry an d se co n d a ry schools. T able 5.1 p resen ts th e
m ean p revalence ratings for each o f five types o f te st m isuse. R atin g s w ere
m ad e on a 4 - p o in t scale, w here 1 was “ R arely p re se n t,” 2 w as “ S o m etim es
p re se n t,” 3 was “ O ften p re se n t,” an d 4 w as “A lm o st alw ays presen t.” R e
sp o n d e n ts believe all types o f m isuse to be at least so m e tim es p resen t, w ith
th e highest ratings received for in stan ces o f overuse o r o v errelian ce o n test
scores th a t stem from ignoring test inaccuracies.
T h o se re sp o n d e n ts w ho in d ic ate th a t they w ork p rim a rily in elem e n ta ry
o r se co n d a ry ed u c a tio n (N = 44) rate each fo rm o f test m isuse as less
p rev a len t th a n d o th e rest o f th e sam ple, b u t th is difference is significant
only for invalid decision m a k in g (2.43 vs. 2.78, p < .007).
All o f the abuses listed above obviously are possible in o th e r testin g
situ atio n s, b u t th e co n sen su s am o n g those w ho have stu d ied th e p ro b lem
seem s to be th a t, w ith th e ex cep tio n o f th e use o f in v alid tests, abuses are
m o st often fo u n d in schools, w here test use is m o st fre q u en t an d test scores
are available to m a n y w ho d o n ’t fully u n d e rsta n d th e m . T h e ex ten t o f th e
p ro b lem is im p o ssib le to e stim a te w ith an y degree o f accuracy, th o u g h
ex p erts believe such p ro b lem s are at least so m e tim es p resen t, b u t it is clear
th a t som e fo rm o f co n tro l is necessary to elim in a te test m isuse. U n fo r
tu n ately, o rg an iz atio n s like th e A m erican P sychological A sso ciatio n (APA)
an d A m erican E d u ca tio n a l R esearch A ssociation (A ER A ), w hich have set
up extensive g u idelines for test p re p a ra tio n a n d use, are u n ab le to enforce
144
The IQ Controversy
th e m in m o st e le m e n ta ry a n d se co n d a ry schools, w here test users are n o t
m e m b ers o f th e relev an t o rg an izatio n s. N o r can test p u b lish ers exercise
m u ch influence by refusing to sell th e ir tests, as th e F T C has ru led th a t test
m ak ers m ay n o t exchange in fo rm a tio n o n know n test a b u s e rs.14 R ecen t
c o u rt cases like L a rry P. provide a costly an d ra th e r d rastic m easu re o f
c o n tro l th ro u g h co m p lete e lim in a tio n o f tests in c e rta in ap p lica tio n s, b u t
even th e c o u rts offer lim ited regu latio n , as m u c h test m isuse d o es n o t
v iolate an y existing laws. In th e end, th e respo n sib ility for p ro p er testin g
falls w ith th e school b o ard an d th e co m m u n ity , w ho m u st en su re th a t th o se
w ho use tests in decision m a k in g a b o u t stu d e n ts have an a d e q u a te u n d e r
sta n d in g o f th e ir tools.
O n e o f the g reat fears a b o u t test use, even a m o n g th o se w ho s u p p o rt
testing, is th a t a c h ild ’s know ledge o f his intelligence te st score, o r th e
tre a tm e n t he receives fro m o th e rs w ho know his score, m ay act to low er
se lf-e stee m a n d m o tiv a tio n , an d , d e p e n d in g o n how th e scores are used, to
stigm atize th e child. T h e likelihood o f such co n seq u e n ces is g reatly in
creased w hen intelligence te st scores are (in co rrectly ) in te rp re te d by te a c h
ers a n d stu d e n ts as a m easu re o f so m e im m u ta b le c h a racteristic o f th e
in d iv id u al. M oreover, trac k in g in e le m e n ta ry a n d se co n d a ry schools, by
w hich stu d e n ts are sep arated ac co rd in g to test score, m ay ex a cerb ate th e
p ro b lem . S p e c ia l-e d u c a tio n classes fo r th e m e n tally reta rd e d rep resen t an
e x tre m e fo rm o f p la ce m en t th ro u g h th e use o f tests. E v alu atio n , a n d su b se
q u e n t effects o n s tu d e n t se lf-c o n c e p t, are a necessary p a rt o f an y e d u c a
tio n a l system , b u t in te llig en c e a n d a p titu d e te sts p ro v id e a p a rtic u la r
d an g e r because so m u c h im p o rta n c e is placed o n a single nu m b er.
W hile few w ould argue th a t intelligence a n d a p titu d e te st scores d o not
affect se lf-e stee m an d m o tiv a tio n , th e m a g n itu d e o f th is in flu en ce is diffi
cu lt to m easure. T h ere have been m a n y re p o rts o f significant positive cor
rela tio n s betw een test scores a n d se lf-c o n cep t, m o tiv a tio n , o r expectancy,
b u t c a u sa lity re m a in s a m b ig u o u s .15 T h e e v id e n c e se em s to in d ic a te ,
however, th a t th e in fluence o f te st scores o n th ese affective v ariab les is
p ro b ab ly n o t large. (C au satio n in th e o p p o site d irec tio n m ay n o t be very
significant either, as th e co rre la tio n m ay reflect th e in flu en ce o f a th ird
variable, stu d e n ts’ actual level o f ability a n d success in school.) B rim a n d
his associates fo u n d th a t high school stu d e n ts te n d e d to g reatly overesti
m a te th e ir ow n intelligence, as m e asu red by te st scores. T h is was p a r
tic u la rly tru e o f stu d e n ts w ith low scores. F ifty p erc en t o f stu d e n ts th o u g h t
th e ir scores w ere to o low relative to th e ir a c tu a l level o f ability, w hile 45
p erc en t th o u g h t th e ir scores w ere ac cu rate. O nly 7 p e rc e n t o f th e stu d e n ts
re p o rte d low ering th e ir se lf-e stim a te s o f intelligence as a resu lt o f th e ir test
scores, w hile 24 p erc en t raised th e ir e s tim a te s.16
Test scores are believed to influence s tu d e n t se lf-esteem an d m o tiv atio n
via teach ers’ a ttitu d e s tow ard test results. A freq u en tly m e n tio n e d ex am p le
145
o f test abuse involves teach ers’ in te rp re tin g te st titles to o literally. In p ar
ticular, tests o f a p titu d e o r intelligence are said to be in te rp re te d as m e a
su res o f so m e fairly p e r m a n e n t asp ec t o f th e te st taker. T h is fatalistic
a ttitu d e is th e n conveyed to th e lo w -sco rin g stu d e n t. W h a t ev idence th e re
is o n th is q u estio n is far from con v in cin g . T h e m ajo rity o f te ach ers in
G o s lin ’s survey in d ic ated th ey believe scores on sta n d a rd iz e d intelligence
tests are influenced at least as m u c h by le arn ed know ledge as by heredity.
M ore th a n th re e -q u a rte rs o f th e teach ers re p o rte d n ever h aving used in te l
ligence test scores in an y dealings w ith stu d e n ts, in c lu d in g th e assigning o f
grades, advising o n coursew ork, an d re p o rtin g o f scores to m o re th a n a few
s tu d e n ts.17 (N o d o u b t a m o re recen t survey w ould find an even g reater
b elief in e n v iro n m e n ta lism , a n d less re p o rtin g o f test results to stu d en ts.)
O f course, teach ers do n o t have to re p o rt test score results in o rd er for those
scores to influence th e te a c h e r’s rela tio n sh ip w ith th e stu d e n t. It is in te re st
ing to note, however, th a t m o st te ach ers in th e G o slin survey re p o rte d
in fre q u e n t know ledge o f s tu d e n t test scores. T h ese d a ta to som e degree
v itiate c o n c e rn s over teach ers’ lack o f test so p h isticatio n .
O n e study th a t c o n tin u e s to be w idely cited as an ex a m p le o f th e stro n g
in flu ence o f n o n in te lle ctu al factors on intelligence test scores is a 1968
e x p e rim e n t en title d P yg m a lio n in th e C la ssro o m ,18 A t th e b eg in n in g o f th e
school year, ele m e n ta ry school teach ers w ere given a list o f several ch ild ren
w ho w ere p red ic ted to show great gains in cognitive d ev e lo p m e n t, as in d i
ca te d by a pretest. In fact, th e n am es o f th e stu d e n ts w ere selected ra n
d o m ly from th e stu d e n ts in th e class. In an IQ test a d m in iste re d at th e en d
o f th e school year, these ch ild ren w ere fo u n d to have m ad e significantly
larger gains in IQ th a n th e ir classm ates. W hile th e stu d y was designed to
show th e effects o f te ac h er ex p ectan cy o n su b se q u en t test score, it also
d e m o n stra te s th a t a te a c h e rs b elief a b o u t a s tu d e n t’s score m ay in fluence
th e s tu d e n t-te a c h e r relationship. T h e e x p e rim e n t has co m e u n d e r a ttac k
for so m e ra th e r severe m eth o d o lo g ical flaw s,19 a n d th e IQ resu lts have n o t
been replicated, desp ite at least a d ozen a tte m p ts to do so. A recen t review
o f P yg m a lio n stu d ies by S. W. R a u d e n b u sh reveals th a t th e effects o f
te ac h er know ledge on stu d e n t ac ad e m ic p e rfo rm a n c e are well established,
b u t th a t overall th e effects o f te ac h er know ledge on s tu d e n t IQ are o f
b o rd erlin e significance, a n d th a t these effects are alm o st en tirely restricted
to situ a tio n s w here the te ac h er has h ad very little p rio r c o n ta c t w ith th e
stu d e n t, an d only in th e first a n d second g rades.20 W h a t is u n fo rtu n a te
a b o u t P yg m a lio n , like H eb e r’s M ilw aukee P roject, is th a t th e IQ results
c o n tin u e to be re p o rte d so uncritically in ac ad e m ic tex ts a n d in m o re
p o p u la r literatu re . T h a t these results are co n siste n t w ith an ex trem e e n
v iro n m e n ta list po sitio n regarding IQ en su res th e ir c o n tin u e d popularity,
d esp ite th e ir q u e stio n a b le em p irica l status.
146
The IQ Controversy
20. O n th e average, how m u ch effect d o yo u believe a te a ch e r’s kn o w led g e
o f a s tu d e n t’s intelligence test score has on th e s tu d e n t’s a ca d em ic
p erform ance?
H ere we ask a b o u t th e m o re general p h e n o m e n o n o f th e P yg m a lio n
effect on a c ad e m ic p e rfo rm a n c e ra th e r th a n th e d iscred ited IQ results.
A nsw ers w ere given on a 4 - p o in t scale, w here 1 w as “ N o significant effect,”
2 w as “ S om e effect,” 3 w as “A m o d e ra te effect,” an d 4 w as “A large effect.”
T h e m e an ratin g o f 2.60 (s.d. = .85, r.r. = 87.7% ) in d ic ates th a t ex p e rts
believe te ach ers’ know ledge o f test scores have, o n average, a sm all to
m o d e ra te effect on s tu d e n t ac ad e m ic p erfo rm an ce . S uch in fluence m ig h t
be e ith e r positive o r negative: lo w -sco rin g stu d e n ts m ig h t be h a rm e d by
teach ers w ho sp en d m o re tim e w ith stu d e n ts w h o le arn m o st easily, o r th ey
m ig h t benefit from te ach ers w ho co n c e n tra te th e ir energies o n stu d e n ts
m o st in need o f help.
21. O n th e average, how m u ch o f an effect do y o u believe a s tu d e n t’s
know led g e o f h is or her intelligence test score ha s on th e s tu d e n t’s
a ca d em ic perform ance?
T h is q u e stio n rep resen ts o n e v aria n t o f th e id ea th a t stu d e n ts m ay be
stig m atized by low er te st scores. T hese scores m ay affect o th e r aspects o f
s tu d e n t b e h a v io r as well. In th e p re se n t case, th e m e a n ratin g is 2.44
(s.d. = .788, r.r. = 84.9% ) on th e sam e scale used in th e p rev io u s q u estio n .
O n ce again, th e effect o f test scores on s tu d e n t b eh av io r m ig h t be positive
as well as negative.
As noted , m o st teach ers re p o rt giving in fo rm a tio n a b o u t in telligence
scores to only a few stu d en ts. T h e m a jo rity o f se c o n d a ry -sc h o o l teach ers
surveyed by G oslin in 1967 believed th a t specific in fo rm a tio n a b o u t in te l
ligence test scores sho u ld only be re p o rte d to stu d e n ts in special cases. T h is
secrecy m ay be d u e, in p a rt, to a b elief in th e possible effects o f test score on
a stu d e n t’s se lf-esteem . R o b e rt Ebel has identified th ree p rim a ry ju stific a
tio n s for th e lo n g -sta n d in g tra d itio n o f secrecy in re p o rtin g test resu lts.21
F irst, co m p lete in fo rm a tio n on th e m e an in g o f test resu lts is to o co m p lex
for tho se w ith o u t th e p ro p e r train in g . S econd, th o se w ho d o n ’t u n d e rsta n d
th e scores will m isuse th em . T h ird , it spares th o se w ho use th e scores from
having to explain an d ju stify th e ir d ecision m ak in g . In arg u in g for m o re
o p en n ess in rep o rtin g test results, Ebel p o in ts o u t th a t d e c isio n -m a k in g
processes sh o u ld be accessible to tho se w h o m th e d ecisio n s affect, a n d th a t
m u c h m isuse can be avoided if th e m e an in g o f test resu lts are ex p lain ed
carefully.
C ertainly, th e re is g reat p o te n tia l for abuse if IQ scores are re p o rte d to
147
p are n ts a n d stu d e n ts w ith o u t a p ro p er ex p la n a tio n o f w h at th e score re p re
sents. M any have suggested th a t such abuses can be m in im iz e d th ro u g h th e
use o f c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d ra th e r th a n n o rm -re fe re n c e d tests. S tu d en ts are
less likely to suffer a loss o f self w o rth an d p a re n ts are less likely to criticize
tests (because they believe th e tests are a tte m p tin g to m easu re so m e th in g
a b o u t th e ir c h ild ’s in n a te w orth) if scores are re p o rte d in te rm s o f p e rc e n t
age o f m a terial m astered ra th e r th a n by a c o m p a riso n w ith o th e r test
tak ers. U n fo rtu n a tely , c rite rio n referencing is only ap p licab le for ach iev e
m e n t tests, n o t tests o f a p titu d e o r intelligence w here th e re is n o in d e p e n
d e n t c rite rio n to w h ich p e rfo rm a n c e ca n be c o m p a re d . S in ce B in et,
intelligence has been defined relative to th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f oth ers. M u ch
m isin te rp re ta tio n o f results m ay th e re fo re be u n av o id ab le unless th o se
receiving th e scores have a good u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e v ario u s co n c ep ts o f
reliability an d validity as th ey relate to an y p a rtic u la r in tellig en ce test.
Test re p o rtin g p ractices have changed so m e w h at from th e p ic tu re p re
se n ted by the B rim et al. a n d G oslin stu d ies d u e to th e passage o f th e
E d u ca tio n a l R ights a n d P rivacy A ct o f 1974. A lso k now n as th e B uckley
A m e n d m e n t, th is law req u ires ed u c atio n al in stitu tio n s receiving federal
financial assistance to allow stu d e n ts o r th e ir p are n ts access to th e stu d e n ts'
a c ad e m ic files, a n d also to en su re co m p lete confidentiality. Elowever, u n
less schools m ake a p o in t o f re p o rtin g intelligence test resu lts along w ith a
d etailed e x p lan a tio n o f th e ir m ean in g , th e law m ak es it m o re likely th a t
p are n ts a n d stu d e n ts will have access to IQ scores th a t th ey d o n 't fully
u n d e rsta n d . For m a n y nonp ro fessio n als, th e IQ c o n tin u e s to c a rry th e a u ra
o f a lin e ar scale o f h u m a n w orth. For th is reason, an d m a n y o f th e o th ers
listed above, Je n sen , o n e o f te stin g ’s sta u n c h e st su p p o rters, has jo in e d c rit
ics in arg u in g against general IQ testin g o f all stu d e n ts as a reg u lar p a rt o f
th e ac ad e m ic c u rric u lu m . H e favors intelligence testin g o nly for research
a n d for diagnoses o f m e n tal re ta rd a tio n a n d o th e r le arn in g p ro b lem s.22
R ecognizing th a t th e id en tificatio n o f ac ad e m ic ta le n t am o n g th e cu ltu rally
an d ed u c atio n ally d isad v an tag ed is also a leg itim ate ju stific a tio n for in te l
ligence testing, Je n sen believes such testin g sh o u ld be ca rrie d o u t th ro u g h
g ro u p a d m in istra tio n by an o u tsid e agency th a t only rep o rts th e scores o f
h ig h -p o te n tia l stu d en ts.
T h ere is a w idespread b elief th a t th e p o te n tia l stig m atizin g effects o f
intelligence testin g are g reatest w hen tests are used for ab ility gro u p in g , or
track in g , in e le m e n ta ry an d se co n d a ry schools. C reatin g h o m o g e n eo u s
classro o m s ac co rd in g to ability level has th e in te n tio n o f p ro v id in g each
stu d e n t w ith a m o re in d iv id u alized level o f in stru c tio n . T h e p rim a ry rea
son for th e great ex p a n sio n in th e use o f IQ tests in schools follow ing W orld
W ar I w as th e ir use in th e estab lish m e n t o f h o m o g e n eo u s classro o m s.23
T h o u g h th e re is still a stro n g b elief am o n g m a n y ed u c ato rs th a t intelligence
148
The IQ Controversy
tests ca n be used to provide th e a p p ro p ria te e d u c a tio n for each s tu d e n t’s
abilities, tra c k in g p er se is n o t as c o m m o n as it was. P artic u larly a t th e
e le m e n ta ry -sc h o o l level, th e evidence in d ic ates th a t ab ility g ro u p in g has
little effect on how m u c h stu d e n ts learn . W h a t po sitiv e effects th e re are
generally o cc u r w ith h ig h -a b ility stu d e n ts; lo w -ab ility stu d e n ts actu ally
seem to d o w orse w hen g ro u p ed only w ith stu d e n ts o f sim ila r a p titu d e .24
T hese results, alo n g w ith the p erc ep tio n th a t ab ility g ro u p in g is stig m atiz
ing to th o se in low er ability groups, has led to a d eclin e in th e use o f
tra c k in g in m an y schools.
In fact, th e effects o f trac k in g on stu d e n t se lf-e stee m a n d m o tiv a tio n are
difficult to d o c u m e n t. B eing placed in th e “ d u m m ie s” class c a n ’t be good
fo r e ith e r o n e ’s p u b lic o r p riv ate im age. (E u p h e m istic labels for ability
g ro u p s like “ b lu eb ird s” a n d “ card in als” are unlik ely to fool an y o n e .) T h e
q u e stio n is, however, n o t w h e th e r such labeling has negative effects, b u t
how these effects c o m p a re to th e a ltern ativ e. Is it w orse to b e assigned to a
slow le arn ers class, o r to be a slow le a rn e r in a h etero g en eo u s classro o m ?
To w h at e x te n t does p la c e m e n t in low er ability g ro u p s b ec o m e a self
fulfilling prophecy, p ro d u c in g low er ability stu d e n ts w ith little m o tiv a tio n
to im prove, a n d to w h at e x te n t m ig h t stu d e n ts be m o re m o tiv ate d to im
p rove w hen th ey are b e tte r able to co m p e te w ith th e ir classm ates? T h e
relative a m o u n ts o f stig m atiza tio n p rese n t in h o m o g e n eo u s a n d h e te ro
g en eo u s classro o m s have n o t been clearly d e m o n stra te d , b u t n e ith e r have
th e e d u c a tio n a l benefits o f tracking.
All o f th is is n o t to say th a t in d iv id u alize d in stru c tio n sh o u ld be, o r has
b ee n , e lim in a te d . T h e tre n d th ese days is to w ard “ m a in s tre a m in g ,” in
w hich stu d e n ts w ork closer to th e ir ow n pace, b u t w ith in h etero g en eo u s
classroom s. (B eing am o n g th e slow est stu d e n ts in a m a in stre a m e d class
m ay o r m ay n o t be less stig m atizin g th a n being a n average stu d e n t in a lo w ab ility track , b u t these ill effects c a n n o t be b la m ed on IQ tests.) A t th e high
school level, trac k in g is still q u ite c o m m o n , b u t g en erally involves th e
s tu d e n t’s ow n c h o ic e b etw e en c a r e e r - a n d c o lle g e -o r ie n te d c u r r ic u la
(th o u g h cou n selo rs, w ho have access to te st scores, o b v io u sly in flu en ce
these decisions). N o r sho u ld th e stig m atizin g effects o f trac k in g be b la m ed
en tirely on intelligence tests. Even in 1963, w hen tw o -th ird s o f high school
stu d e n ts re p o rte d being trac k ed in ele m e n ta ry school a n d th r e e -q u a rte r s
in high sch o o l,25 an ex p e rim e n t in w hich te ach ers w ere asked to assign
im a g in a ry stu d e n ts to regular o r ad v a n ce d classes revealed th a t m o st te a c h
ers w ere at least as influenced by re c o m m e n d a tio n s fro m o th e r teach ers
an d co u n selo rs as by a p titu d e a n d a c h ie v em e n t test d a ta .26 A m o re recen t
review in d icates th a t only a sm all percen tag e o f school system s p rac ticin g
ability g ro u p in g use test scores as th e sole criterio n for p la ce m en t, an d
am o n g th e rest tests play on ly a se co n d a ry role in trac k in g d ecisio n s.27
149
A lso, m a n y o f th e tests th a t are used in co u n selin g an d c u rric u lu m decision
m ak in g are tests o f ach ie v em e n t o r in terest inv en to ries, a n d n o t IQ or
a p titu d e tests.
A n are a w here intelligence tests c o n tin u e to be used heavily, a n d w here
stig m atizin g effects are believed to be great, is in th e p la ce m en t o f stu d e n ts
in to sp e c ia l-e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m s for th e m e n tally h an d ica p p ed . R e co m
m e n d a tio n for p la ce m en t in special classes is usually m a d e by a school
psychologist o r sim ila r professional after a s tu d e n t has been referred for
e x a m in a tio n by a teacher, counselor, o r p a re n t as a resu lt o f ex tre m e diffi
cu lty in th e classroom . T h e e x a m in a tio n alm o st in v ariab ly involves an
in d iv id u ally a d m in iste re d IQ test such as th e S ta n fo rd -B in e t o r W ISC, b u t
also generally in clu d es s e n s o ry -m o to r a n d o th e r psychological testing, an
in v estigation o f social b ac k g ro u n d , an d tests o f a d a p tiv e behavior. T h e
original B in e t-S im o n test w as developed p rim a rily to aid in th e id en tifica
tio n o f m en tally reta rd e d stu d e n ts, a n d such diagnoses rem a in o ne o f th e
fu n d a m e n ta l leg itim ate uses for IQ tests. In m an y states, IQ m u st fall below
a c e rta in score (usually 75 o r 80) before an in d iv id u al can be co n sid ered
m e n tally reta rd e d , a n d th u s eligible for special p la ce m en t, b u t low IQ is n o t
th e sole criterio n for such p la c e m e n t even in these ju risd ic tio n s. F or e x a m
ple, o n e study o f a C a lifo rn ia school d istric t fo u n d th a t o n ly 52 p erc en t o f
th o se stu d e n ts w ith scores below th e c u to ff w ere assigned to classes for th e
e d u cab le m e n tally reta rd e d (E M R ).28 A m ong th e ad d itio n a l facto rs in flu
en cin g p la c e m e n t are often a c h ie v em e n t test scores; in general, stu d e n ts
p laced in E M R a n d o th e r special ed u c a tio n classes te n d to have achieved
less (before p la ce m en t) th a n stu d e n ts o f sim ila r IQ n o t so placed.
T h e controversy over the use o f intelligence tests in th e labeling o f the
re ta rd e d usually is c o n c e rn e d w ith tho se in d iv id u als labeled ed u cab le m e n
tally retard ed (E M R ), w hose IQ s are a t th e low en d o f th e d istrib u tio n ,
rep resen tin g m ild reta rd a tio n , b u t are n o t so low (e.g.. less th a n 55) as to be
c o n sid e re d m o d e ra te ly o r p ro fo u n d ly m e n ta lly re ta rd e d . In th e la tte r
group, k now n as clinical retard ates, reta rd a tio n usually is asso ciated w ith a
specific neurological o r physiological deficit. Such reta rd a tio n generally is
d iag nosed early in life, an d these in d iv id u als rarely find th em selv es in
p u b lic schools, having difficulty coping w ith even th e m o st ru d im e n ta ry
tasks. It is clinical reta rd a tio n , such as am o n g th o se suffering from D ow n s
sy n d ro m e, th a t m o st o f us th in k o f w hen we h ear “ m e n ta l re ta rd a tio n .”
T h is is n o t th e g ro u p to w hich the E M R label applies. T h e ed u cab le
m e n tally reta rd e d are classified p rim a rily as so cio cu ltu ral reta rd a te s a n d
a p p e a r to rep rese n t th e low en d o f th e n o rm a l IQ d istrib u tio n . (C linical
re ta rd a te s rep rese n t a h u m p at th e low en d o f th e d istrib u tio n o f IQs, a n d
are equally likely to be fo u n d in fam ilies o f all racial, eth n ic, a n d so
cio ec o n o m ic classifications. S o cio cu ltu ral reta rd a te s, on th e o th e r h an d .
150
The IQ Controversy
are m u ch m o re c o m m o n a m o n g lo w er-sco rin g g ro u p s such as blacks, H is
p anics, an d m e m b ers o f low er so c io eco n o m ic classes.) T h ese in d iv id u als
have little difficulty coping w ith th e n o rm a l d e m a n d s o f early ch ild h o o d ,
b u t d e m o n stra te th e ir re ta rd a tio n once th ey sta rt school. Such re ta rd a tio n
g enerally is n o t associated w ith an y specific physiological ab n o rm a lities.
T h e label “ re ta rd a te ” for th ese ch ild ren is an u n fo rtu n a te on e, b o th b e
cause it te n d s to be associated w ith m o re ex tre m e c o n d itio n s a n d because
p are n ts an d o th e rs w ho see th a t ch ild ren are well ad a p te d in o th e r are as o f
life are th e n to ld by school officials th a t th e child is retard ed . T h e an g e r a n d
fru stra tio n p ro d u ce d by such an o b vious c o n tra d ic tio n leads to ac tio n like
th e L a r r y P. case, in w hich intelligence tests are singled o u t as an easy
target, th o u g h tests clearly are n o t th e cause o f th e E M R diagnosis.
T h e re has been m u ch criticism o f E M R classes a n d p la ce m en t m eth o d s,
in c lu d in g th e claim th a t th ese classes offer little in th e way o f positive
ed u c a tio n a n d in th e en d d o m o re h a rm th a n good th ro u g h th e stig m atiz
ing effects o f th e label “ m e n tally retard ed .”29 In fact, th e re is little ev id en ce
fo r e ith e r positive o r negative lo n g -te rm effects o f E M R p la cem en t. T h e
possible stig m atizin g effects o f E M R p la ce m en t have been ex a m in e d from
n u m e ro u s perspectives, in c lu d in g th e c h ild ’s se lf-p e rc e p tio n , th e o p in io n s
o f his peers a n d teachers, a n d effects o n a c ad e m ic co m p ete n ce . A review o f
th is research by D o n ald M acM illan, R eginald Jo n es, a n d G re g o ry A loia
reveals th a t th e d a ta are a t best equivocal; th e re is no “ s u p p o rt for th e
n o tio n th a t labeling has lo n g -la stin g an d d ev a sta tin g effects on th o se la
b eled.” 30 N eith er, how ever, w as a n o th e r review ab le to fin d su b sta n tia l
p o sitive effects o n e ith e r ac ad e m ic ach ie v em e n t o r social a d ju stm e n t from
p la c e m e n t in E M R classes.31 A t present, E M R p la ce m en t seem s to be on
th e decline, as th e E d u ca tio n fo r All H a n d ic a p p e d C h ild re n A ct o f 1975
(w hich req u ires th a t all h a n d ic a p p e d c h ild re n , in c lu d in g th e m e n ta lly
h an d ica p p ed , be given in d iv id u alize d e d u c a tio n ) has p u t th e em p h asis on
special ed u c a tio n a n d services w ithin m a in stre a m e d classes. F u rth e r reg
u la tio n s established in 1977 req u ire th a t no single p ro ced u re, in c lu d in g
tests, be used for p lacing stu d e n ts in E M R classes.
A n im p o rta n t elem e n t in Ju d g e P eck h a m ’s decision in L a r r y P. w as his
b elief th a t black ch ild ren w ere being dep riv ed o f e d u c atio n al o p p o rtu n ity
by being placed in “ stig m atizin g ” a n d “ in fe rio r” E M R classes. T h e d a ta do
n o t s u p p o rt such a co n c lu sio n , n o r sh o u ld th e evid en ce p resen ted to Ju d g e
P eck h am have led h im to such a belief. W itnesses for th e plaintiffs h ad few
c o m m e n ts a b o u t th e ac tu al c o n te n t o f E M R in stru c tio n , d esp ite th e in sis
te n ce o f th e plaintiffs’ a tto rn e y s th a t these classes w ere ed u c atio n ally in
ferior d ead ends. D efense w itnesses, on th e o th e r h a n d , d escrib ed E M R
classes as carefully m o n ito re d , m u c h slow er fo rm s o f th e reg u lar c u rric u
lu m , in c lu d in g v o catio n al tra in in g (for o ld e r stu d e n ts) in a d d itio n to tra d i
151
tio n a l acad em ic su b jects.32 W h e th e r o r n o t th is d escrip tio n is accu rate.
Ju d g e P eckham sho u ld have h ad little choice, given th e ev id en ce he h eard ,
b u t to co n c lu d e th a t E M R classes are n o t in ferio r d e a d - e n d tracks. Par
ticu larly co m p ellin g w ith regard to stig m atiza tio n is th a t w h en fo u r o f th e
n a m e d plaintiffs, all teenagers an d all v eteran s o f E M R p la ce m en t, to o k th e
sta n d , on ly o n e expressed aw areness o f being labeled m e n tally re ta rd e d .33
B ut th e facts never m a tte re d m u c h in th e L a rry P. case, as th ey have n o t
th ro u g h o u t m u c h o f the IQ controversy. S am uel G u sk in , in co n c u rrin g
w ith the co n c lu sio n s o f th e M acm illan et al. review o f stig m atiza tio n re
search, accu rately assessed th e situ atio n : “ T h e labeling co n tro v ersy is in
a c tu a lity a p o litica l a rg u m e n t b etw een th o se w ho s u p p o rt th e c u r r e n t
suystem o f special ed u c a tio n a n d psychological diag n o sis as a co n stru c tiv e
an d altru istic a rra n g e m e n t a n d tho se w ho w ish to b rea k u p th a t system
because they see it as oppressive a n d destructive.”34
22. A s s u m in g that p la c em en t o f w hite children into classes fo r the
ed u ca b le m e n ta lly retarded (E M R ) is to continue, are y o u in fa v o r o f th e
use o f in d iv id u a lly a d m in iste re d intelligence tests as on e o f th e criteria fo r
such p la c e m e n t?
23. A ssu m in g that p la c em en t o f b lack children into E M R classes is to
continue, are yo u in fa v o r o f th e use o f in d iv id u a lly a d m in iste re d
intelligence tests as one o f th e criteria fo r such placem ent?
In th e L a rry P. case, Ju d g e P eckham fo u n d intelligence tests biased an d
in v alid, a n d p laced a m o ra to riu m on th e use o f such tests for th e p la ce m en t
o f stu d e n ts in to E M R classes. We assessed ex p e rt o p in io n o f th is c o n
clu sion. E ig h ty -th re e p erc en t o f tho se surveyed resp o n d ed to each o f th e
q u e stio n s above. A m o n g tho se ex p e rts responding , 95 p erc en t believe IQ
tests sho u ld be used for w hite stu d e n ts, a n d 92 p erc en t believe th ey sh o u ld
be used for black stu d e n ts. T hese results in d ic ate th a t th e racial bias e x p erts
perceive in IQ tests is not sufficient in th e ir eyes to ju stify d iscard in g th em .
A dm issions Testing in H igher Education
O n e o f th e m o st fre q u en t uses o f sta n d a rd iz e d tests is for ad m issio n to
colleges, an d g rad u a te a n d professional schools. D u rin g 1982-1983 over 1
m illio n people to o k eith er th e SAT o r A m erican College Testing P rogram
(A C T) exam at least once. A p p ro x im ately 90 p erc en t o f all U.S. colleges
an d u n iversities req u ire th a t ap p lica n ts ta k e o n e o r th e o th e r test. T h e
p ro p o rtio n o f g rad u a te an d professional schools req u irin g tests like the
G r a d u a te R e c o rd E x a m in a tio n (G R E ), Law S ch o o l A d m is s io n T est
152
The IQ Controversy
(LSAT), a n d M edical C ollege A dm ission Test (M CA T) is sim ilar.35 Few
th in g s pro v o k e m o re an x iety in stu d e n ts th a n c o n te m p la tio n o f SATs a n d
sim ila r exam s, yet sta n d a rd iz e d tests are a necessary evil to n early all th o se
w ho seek higher ed u c atio n .
T h ere re m a in s so m e q u estio n as to th e sta tu s o f ad m issio n s tests as
m easu res o f a p titu d e o r ac h ie v em e n t. T h e pub lish ers o f th e SAT a n d G R E ,
th e E d u c a tio n a l Testing Service (ETS), over th e years have ch an g ed th e ir
p u b lic stan ce a b o u t th e sta tu s o f th e ir tests, largely in resp o n se to p u b lic
criticism . C h risto p h e r Je n ck s a n d Ja m es C rouse, in a 1982 c ritiq u e o f th e
SAT, p o in t o u t th a t a 1959 E T S p u b lic a tio n tells te n -y e a r -o ld s th a t “ Y our
scholastic ab ility is like an engine. It is th e source o f y o u r pow er a n d speed
in school: It tells you how fast a n d how far you can go.”36 Je n ck s a n d C ro u se
jo in o th e rs in criticizin g E T S for m isleading te st ta k ers in to th in k in g th e ir
scores reflect a relatively p e rm a n e n t a ttrib u te .37 M o re recen t E T S sta te
m e n ts explicitly recognize these difficulties:
A common misconception is that these tests somehow measure innate un
changing abilities. In fact, they measure learned skills. They are described as
aptitude tests because they are not tied to a particular course o f study, curric
ulum or program, and because they are typically used to assess students’
relative abilites to perform well in future academic work.38
T h is d efin itio n o f a p titu d e tests is co n siste n t w ith th a t p u t fo rth in C h a p
te r 2. As long as th e ETS ad m issio n s tests are d e p e n d e n t on know ledge
c o m m o n to v irtu a lly all test tak ers (e.g., in th e case o f th e SAT, E nglish
usage an d m a th e m a tic s to w hich all se c o n d -y e a r high school stu d e n ts have
been exposed), th ese tests will act as m easu res o f a p titu d e , an d we m ay tre a t
th e m as such. (T h e p ro b le m o f stu d e n t p e rc e p tio n re m a in s, how ever.
W a rn er Slack a n d D ouglas Porter, ech o ed by Je n ck s a n d C ro u se, arg u e th a t
th e b elief th a t th e re is little o n e can d o to im prov e SAT scores u n d e rm in e s
s tu d e n t m o tiv a tio n to ta k e m o re challenging co urses a n d to stu d y h a rd e r in
high school.)39
D espite th e ir w idespread use, a p titu d e tests are n o t th e m o st im p o rta n t
d e te rm in a n t o f ad m issio n s to colleges, a p o sitio n reserved for high school
g rade p o in t average (GPA). R o d n e y S kager has review ed th e rele v an t evi
d en ce for th e N atio n al A cad em y o f S ciences, a n d fo u n d th a t m o st u n d e r
g rad u a te in stitu tio n s surveyed in d icate th a t test scores are a very im p o rta n t
fac to r in ad m issio n s decisions, b u t n o t as im p o rta n t as high school grades.
A bsolute test score cutoffs are alm o st u n h e a rd of. Interview s an d letters o f
r e c o m m e n d a tio n , w hile o ften used, g en e rally a re n o t as in flu e n tia l as
g rades o r test scores.40 T h is ra n k -o rd e rin g o f criteria seem s to be an ac c u
rate reflection o f th e ir validity in p red ic tin g college G PA , a t least d u rin g th e
153
first year. H igh school GPA co rrela te s a b o u t 0.50 w ith first-y e ar-co lleg e
G PA , w hile th e co rrela tio n betw een SAT score a n d college GPA is a p p ro x
im ately 0 .4 0 .41 U sin g high school GPA a n d SAT scores to g e th er provides
b etter p red ic tio n th a n using eith er alone. (F irst-y e a r g rades in g rad u a te
an d professional schools actu ally seem to be p red icted so m e w h at b e tte r by
ad m issio n s test scores th a n by college G PA , b u t even here, th e tw o to g e th er
pro v ide su p e rio r p re d ic tio n .)42
T h e use o f the SAT a n d o th e r ap titu d e tests in ad m issio n s to h igher
ed u c a tio n has been criticized because o f the tests’ relatively sm all p re d ic
tive accu racy for h rs t-y e a r grades (only 16 p erc en t o f th e v arian ce ac
c o u n te d for in th e case o f th e SAT), an d because test scores p red ic t o th e r
criteria o f success, like later grades, p ro b ab ility o f g ra d u a tio n , a n d la te r-life
acco m p lish m e n ts, even less well. B ut th e use o f a selection device is always
a relative qu estio n : how does selection w ith th e device co m p are to selection
w ith o u t it? T h e fact is, we c a n n o t p red ic t th ese o th e r criteria for success
very well at th e tim e a stu d e n t is ap p ly in g for ad m issio n , regardless o f th e
selection in stru m e n ts used. R o b e rt K litg a ard ’s rec en t C h o o sin g E lites is a
careful study o f selection p ro ce d u re s at selective colleges a n d g rad u a te
pro g ram s. K litgaard review s research on th e ability o f n u m e ro u s criteria,
in c lu d in g G PA , test scores, interview s, a n d b iograp h ical d ata, to p red ic t
ac ad e m ic p e rfo rm a n c e a n d several later life in tellectu al, eco n o m ic, a n d
p erso n a lity variables. H e co n clu d es th a t th e on ly v ariab le we seem able to
p red ic t w ith an y rea so n ab le validity is ac ad e m ic p e rfo rm a n c e , p rim a rily
early in school, a n d th a t using test scores as o n e c rite rio n for selection
p ro v ides significantly b e tte r p red ic tio n th a n d oes selection w ith o u t test
scores.43 H e also d e m o n stra te s th a t the ap p a re n tly sm all im p ro v e m e n t in
p red ic tio n offered by ad m issio n s tests can m ak e a significant difference
(alm o st o n e - th ird o f a sta n d a rd d ev iatio n for selective colleges) in th e
average ac ad e m ic ability o f stu d e n ts at a university.44
M oreover, th e relatively low validity coefficients betw een ad m issio n s test
scores a n d su b se q u en t GPA are m islead in g for at least tw o reasons. First,
th e re is th e p ro b lem o f re stric tio n o f range. A co rrela tio n o f 0 .4 0 rep resen ts
th e rela tio n sh ip betw een SAT score a n d GPA o f only th o se stu d e n ts a d m it
ted to college— stu d e n ts w ith higher SAT scores. In clu d in g all ap p lica n ts
w ould increase th e range o f SAT scores an d , presum ably, th e ran g e o f
GPAs, th u s increasin g th e c o rre la tio n an d th e te st’s a p p a re n t pred ictiv e
power. R o b e rt L in n has d e m o n stra te d , th ro u g h an ex a m in a tio n o f 726
LSAT validity studies, th a t th e higher th e v aria n ce in LSAT score in th e
v alid atio n sam ple, th e higher th e p redictive validity o f th e te st.45 Second,
v alidity coefficients are depressed by th e fact th a t th ey are n o t co rrec ted for
th e u n reliab ility o f th e test a n d sa m p lin g flu ctu atio n s a m o n g validity s tu d
ies.46
154
The IQ Controversy
T h a t ad m issio n s tests p ro v id e pred ictiv e validity o ver a n d above th a t o f
GPA alo n e is p ro b ab ly a resu lt o f v ariatio n in th e q u ality an d g rad in g
sta n d a rd s o f high schools an d colleges. S tan d a rd ized tests give ad m issio n s
officers a m easu re o f stu d e n t ability th a t cu ts across differences in schools
an d in n o n a c a d e m ic factors affecting grades. D espite rec en t accu satio n s,
m o st n o ta b ly by A llan N a irn a n d his associates in T h e R eig n o f E T S , th a t
th e E TS tests are p rim a rily a m e an s o f p ro p ag a tin g ex istin g social stratifica
tio n s, these tests historically have ac te d as a d e m o c ra tiz in g force. T h e
a d v e n t o f th e SAT an d o th e r ad m issio n s tests actu ally in creased m in o rity
e n ro llm e n t in schools o f higher ed u c a tio n , as stu d e n ts w ere no lo n g er
draw n only from th e m ost prestigious priv ate a n d p u b lic schools, a n d on
th e basis o f m o re subjective criteria. As R o b e rt L in n p u ts it:
At a time when tests are under attack because they allegedly give some
students an unfair advantage relative to other students, especially the poor
and minority students, it is desirable to recognize that the lack of com
parability of grades from one school to another, from one curriculum to
another, or from one college to another is a potentially im portant source of
unfairness. The student who attends a school with less demanding standards
for grades is given an advantage [in GPA] relative to his or her counterpart
attending a school with more demanding standards.47
A dm issio n s officers are aw are o f these in eq u ities, a n d are likely to d o w n
play a high G PA from a m in o rity stu d e n t in an in n e r-c ity high school
w ith o u t c o rro b o ra tin g evidence from test scores.
R egardless o f th e essential fairness o r validity o f ad m issio n s tests, th e
co ntro v ersy over th ese tests is m o o t for th e vast m a jo rity o f ap p lican ts. As
m e n tio n e d in C h a p te r 1, m o st colleges are n o t very selective. A survey
co n d u c te d by th e College E n tran c e E x a m in a tio n B oard reveals th a t th e
m e d ian p ro p o rtio n o f a p p lic a n ts accep ted by p u b lic 4 - y e a r colleges in th e
U n ite d States is 80 p erc en t (70 p erc en t for p riv ate colleges), th u s u n d e rc u t
tin g m u c h a rg u m e n t a b o u t ov errelian ce o n a p titu d e te st scores fo r im p o r
ta n t life decisio n s.48 T h e on ly places w here ad m issio n seem s to be highly
selective are in th e m o st prestigious, a n d in g rad u a te a n d pro fessio n al
schools, w here m a n y m o re ap p ly th a n can be accep ted .
S tiff c o m p e titio n for places in highly selective colleges a n d g rad u a te an d
professional schools m ean s th a t a large n u m b e r o f ap p lic a n ts will have high
G PA s a n d a p titu d e test scores. O th e r a d m issio n s criteria th e re fo re b eco m e
im p o r ta n t, a n d g ra d u a te a n d p ro fe ssio n a l sch o o ls ty p ic ally p u t m o re
w eight o n interview s, essays, a n d letters o f re c o m m e n d a tio n th a n d o m o st
colleges, th o u g h still n o t as m u c h w eight as th ey p u t o n test scores an d
g rades.49 T h e n arro w range o f grades a n d test scores a m o n g th o se accep ted
m ean s, however, th a t a c c u ra te m e asu res o f pred ictiv e v alidity are very
155
difficult to o b ta in . T h ere is also th e p o te n tia l for ab u se, as ad m issio n s
d ecisions m ay be m ad e o n th e basis o f score differentials th a t have little
m e an in g given th e te st’s m e a su re m e n t error.
In an effort to red u ce such m isuse, the LSAT recen tly has been ch an g ed
from a 2 0 0 -8 0 0 grading scale to a 10-48 scale, so th a t differences in test
score are m ore m eaningful. Beyond this, ad m issio n s officers m u st be ca re
ful n o t to base an y d ecision to o heavily o n a single m easu re k now n to have
lim ite d p redictive validity. (In w hat is otherw ise an exceedingly glib d iscu s
sion o f the “ m y th " o f scholastic ap titu d e , D avid O w en a d m its in N o n e o f
th e A bove th a t “ [e]very ad m issio n s officer I’ve ever talk ed to has to ld m e
th a t no stu d e n t w ith good grades was ever rejected solely because his test
scores w ere low.’’)50 A ll other things being equal, on e is statistically b etter
off choosing a stu d e n t w ith a 700 verbal SAT over o n e w ith a 690. B ut o th e r
th in g s are rarely equal, an d the wise decision in such a case is to tre a t these
tw o scores as eq u iv ale n t, an d look to o th e r criteria. (In th e ty p ical la rg e scale ad m issio n s situ a tio n , th is tran slate s in to n ea r-e x clu siv e relian ce on
g rades an d test scores for th o se w ith very high o r very low n u m b e rs, a n d
in creasin g use o f o th e r criteria n ea r th e m arg in .) T h e situ a tio n is p o te n
tially m o re serious in tho se situ a tio n s w here test scores are used for a d m is
sio n s to g rad u a te p ro g ra m s for w hich n o v alid atio n stu d ies have ever been
d o n e. Such p ro g ra m s th a t use tests w ith a b la c k -w h ite score differential
(w hich in c lu d es ju s t a b o u t ev ery a d m issio n s te st c u rre n tly in use) are
p rim e targets for legal action.
24. P redictive validity o f a d m issio n s tests.
R e sp o n d en ts w ere asked, for each o f six co m m o n ly used ad m issio n s
tests, w h eth e r they believe th e test adds sufficient p red ictiv e validity to th a t
available from o th e r n o n te st criteria to ju stify its c o n tin u e d use in highly
selective ad m issio n s decisions. N o n re sp o n se rates are high ( > 35%) for all
tests b u t the S cholastic A p titu d e Test (SAT) an d th e G ra d u a te R ecord
E x am in atio n (G R E ). a result n o t su rp risin g in a p o p u la tio n co n sistin g
m ostly o f m e m b ers o f college a n d univ ersity d e p a rtm e n ts o f psychology
an d e d u c atio n . N o netheless, th e p ercentage o f tho se answ erin g w ho a d v o
cate c o n tin u e d use is rem a rk a b ly high a n d c o n siste n t across tests. R esults
are: SAT. 89.6% ; A m erican College Test (ACT), 87.8% ; G R E . 82.2% ; Law
S chool A dm ission Test (LSAT), 86.6% ; M edical C ollege A d m issio n Test
(M CA T), 87.2% ; an d G ra d u a te M a n a g e m e n t A d m issio n Test (G M A T),
86.7%.
R elated to th e q u estio n o f ad m issio n s test validity is th e co n tro v ersy over
th e effects o f coaching, p articu la rly on SAT p erfo rm an ce . F or years th e
ETS has vehem ently d en ied th a t s h o r t- te r m co ach in g p ro g ra m s have an y
156
The IQ Controversy
significant effect on test score, yet co aching p ro g ra m s like S tan ley K ap la n
c o n tin u e to be profitable. A large p ro p o rtio n o f th e p o p u la tio n a p p a re n tly
believes th a t co ach in g w orks. C ritics see th e co ach ab ility o f th e SAT as
u n d e rm in in g th e claim th a t it is a test o f a p titu d e , as well as affecting th e
fairness o f th e test for tho se w ho c a n n o t afford a co ach in g p ro g ram .
T h e em p irica l research on co ach in g effects is ex trem ely messy. T h e m a
jo r p ro b lem is th a t m o st studies co m p are th e te st scores o f th o se v o lu n
ta rily in co ach in g p ro g ra m s w ith th o se w ho have n o t received co aching.
T h e o b v io u s difficulty here is th a t th o se w ho e n te r co ach in g p ro g ra m s m ay
differ in o th e r ways from tho se w ho d o n ’t, m o st n o ta b ly in th e m o tiv atio n
to succeed. S tudies th a t have e x a m in e d b e fo re - an d a fte r-c o a c h in g scores
w ith in g ro u p s have m o re o ften th a n n o t failed to in c lu d e p ro p e r co n tro ls.51
Two recen t review s have a tte m p te d to su m m a riz e th is research , elim in a tin g
o r c o n tro llin g for studies using in a d e q u a te m etho d o lo g y .52 T h e co n c lu sio n s
o f th ese review ers are nearly id entical: th e effect o n SAT score o f s h o rt
te rm co ach in g p rogram s, w hile d em o n strab le , is to o sm all to be o f p ractical
im p o r ta n c e . T h e re su lts o f th e review by S a m u e l M essick a n d A n n
Ju n g e b lu t, tw o ETS researchers, have b ec o m e th e official ETS line: score
gain is an in creasing fu n c tio n o f a m o u n t o f tim e sp e n t stu d y in g ; tru ly
m e an in g fu l (in te rm s o f ad m issio n to college) score differences d o n o t
a p p e a r u n til stu d y tim e is eq u iv a le n t to several high school courses, p re p a
ra tio n th e E TS has always m a in ta in e d is rele v an t to SAT p erfo rm an ce .
In 1976, th e F ederal T rade C o m m issio n (F T C ) began an in v estig atio n to
d e te rm in e w h e th e r c o m p a n ie s o ffering SAT c o a c h in g co u rses w ere d e
fra u d in g th e ir cu sto m ers. T h e initial F T C re p o rt, c o m p leted in 1978, in d i
ca te s th a t s u b s ta n tia l sc o re g ain s a re p o ssib le th ro u g h c o m m e rc ia lly
available co ach in g co u rses.53 P ublic release o f the re p o rt w as held up, possi
bly as a result o f p ressure from ETS, w hile th e d a ta w ere rean aly zed . T h e
final rep o rt, issued in 1979, c o n ta in s m a n y o f th e co n tro ls fo u n d in th e
review s cited above, a n d co n clu d es th a t sm all b u t significant g ain s are
p ossible.54 A t th e tim e th e re p o rt was released, an F T C sp o k e sm an stressed
th a t th e re p o rt was n o t to be in te rp re te d as an e n d o rse m e n t o f co aching.
T h is disavow al, alo n g w ith th e delay for reanalysis (th e staff a tto rn e y a t th e
B oston F T C office in charge o f th e investig atio n resigned w hile his re p o rt
re m a in e d unreleased ) raises n u m e ro u s u n an sw e re d q u estio n s a b o u t th e
p o litical c lim a te su rro u n d in g th is g o v e rn m e n t rep o rt.
M uch o f N o n e o f th e A bove is d ev o ted to D avid O w en ’s c o n te n tio n th a t
th e SAT is a highly coach ab le test th a t can be “ b e a t” if o n e u n d e rsta n d s th e
way th e test m akers are th in k in g . O w en praises th e P rin c eto n Review, a
co ach in g p ro g ram th a t uses m a n y o f these princip les, an d th a t has re p o rte d
g reat success in p ro d u cin g very large SAT gains a m o n g its stu d en ts. T h e
P rin c eto n R eview is th e k ind o f pro g ram th a t has been d o w nplayed in
review s o f c o a c h in g effects, d u e to lack o f p ro p e r c o n tro ls. T h u s far.
157
however, no scientific stu d ies o f P rin c eto n R eview effects have been re
viewed. T h a t th e re are large differences betw een co ach in g p ro g ra m s in
degree o f re p o rte d im p ro v e m en t seem s to in d icate th a t th e re is so m e th in g
th a t som e pro g ram s do b e tte r th a n others. G lossing over th ese differences
in c o n c a te n a tin g research results m ay obscu re im p o rta n t variables; n o t all
co ach in g p ro g ram s are created equal. As D avid O w en p u ts it, “ H aving
h eard th a t the W right b ro th e rs have ta k en off at K itty H aw k, E TS sam ples
th e general state o f aviatio n an d a n n o u n c e s th a t m an , o n average, c a n ’t
fly.”55 O f course, m a n y o f tho se w ho ex a m in e th e P rin c eto n R eview results
m ay n o t find th is d e m o n stra tio n q u ite as co m p ellin g as th e W right b ro th
ers’.
If th e SAT is co achable, it m ay be eco n o m ically unfair. T h o se w ho c a n
n o t afford a co a ch in g p ro g ra m , o r w hose high schools do n o t p ro v id e th e m ,
will be a t a d isad v an tag e w hen ta k in g th e test. T h e fairn ess o f th is situ atio n ,
however, d ep e n d s on th e rela tio n betw een co ach in g effects a n d th e validity
o f th e test. C ritics assu m e th a t co ach in g u n d e rm in e s te st v alidity (a p p a r
ently, so does th e ETS), b u t th is has n o t been em p irically d e m o n stra te d .
T h e q u estio n is, does a stu d e n t w ho has raised his SAT verbal score from
500 to 600 as a result o f so m e co ach in g p ro g ram d o m o re p o o rly in college,
o n average, th a n a stu d e n t w ho received a 600 w ith o u t co aching? If n o t,
a n d test scores m ean th e sam e th in g for b o th th e co ach ed a n d u n co ach ed ,
th e n co aching is a leg itim ate way to im prove the ac tu al co lleg e -re lev a n t
a p titu d e th e test is m easuring. T hose w ho d o n o t receive co ach in g w ould be
a t a disad va n ta g e relative to th o se w ho do, b u t th e test is n o t biased or
u n fair tow ard th em .
T h e controversy over ad m issio n s testin g has en tered th e p u b lic policy
a re n a in recent years w ith th e d eb ate a n d su b se q u en t passage o f th e 1980
T ru th -in -T e s tin g Law in N ew Y ork S tate. T h is law req u ires test m ak ers,
w h o are n o t su b je ct to th e Buckley A m e n d m e n t, to release th e c o n te n ts
a n d answ ers o f th e ir tests to th e general p u b lic sh o rtly after a d m in istra tio n
o f an exam . In a d d itio n , test ta k ers have th e righ t to see th e ir exam s in
o rd e r to d e te rm in e w hich q u e stio n s they answ ered incorrectly. (A sim ilar
b u t slightly less strin g en t law has recently been passed in C a lifo rn ia.) T h e
ETS, against w hose tests th e law was p rim a rily directed , arg u ed ag ain st th e
law, n o t because they felt th a t th e general p u b lic w ould m isu se results (SAT
scores are ro u tin e ly re p o rte d to test tak ers, th o u g h th is w as n o t th e case
early in th e test's history), b u t because th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f a co m p letely
new test for each a d m in istra tio n w ould significantly in crease th e cost to th e
test taker, p u ttin g a d isp ro p o rtio n a te b u rd e n o n th e ec o n o m ically d isa d
v antaged. In a d d itio n , by being forced to p ro d u ce tests at a m o re rap id p ace
w ith o u t reusing te st q u estio n s, test m ak ers arg u ed th a t test validity w ould
be reduced, increasin g th e ch a n ce o f bias a n d u n fa ir selection.
T h e law ’s p ro p o n e n ts, led by m e m b ers o f th e N ad e r o rg an iz atio n , felt
158
The IQ Controversy
th a t test ta k ers’ have a right to know as m u c h as possible a b o u t th e ir
p e rfo rm a n c e o n tests th a t play such a critical role in im p o rta n t life d ec i
sions, a n d they p resen ted evidence th a t test d ev e lo p m e n t rep resen ts o n ly a
sm all fractio n o f th e cost o f each test to E T S .56 T h ere w as also th e h o p e th a t
co m p lete disclosure w ould lead to great im p ro v e m en ts in th e q u ality an d
fairness o f ad m issio n s testing, as test m ak ers w ere forced to reveal m o re o f
th e ir p ractices a n d rely on less secretive m e th o d s o f test v alid atio n . (It is
a p p a re n t from T h e R eig n o f E T S th a t th e real ag en d a o f N ad e r a n d his
su p p o rte rs is far m o re am b itio u s th a n increased ac co u n tab ility : th ey share
w ith o th e r egalitarian social refo rm ers th e desire to u n d e rm in e testing.)
T h e re is little to indicate, however, th a t th e law has h ad m u c h effect o n test
practices, o th e r th a n th e e lim in a tio n o f a few a m b ig u o u s q u estio n s an d th e
c o rre c tio n o f clerical erro rs in scoring.57 T h e ETS has g one to a policy o f
v o lu n ta ry d isclosure natio n w id e, pro b ab ly to avoid w h at th ey feared w ould
be an even h arsh e r p en d in g federal law. W hen th e N ew Y ork law h ad teeth ,
however, less th a n 2 p erc en t o f SAT ta k ers req u ested to see th e ir e x a m .58
F ro m a pu b lic rela tio n s sta n d p o in t, co m p lete d isclo su re is p ro b ab ly in th e
best in te rests o f th e testin g industry. By p rese n tin g an im age o f secrecy a n d
d istru st ra th e r th a n co m p lete candor, test m a k ers o nly in ten sify th e p resen t
crisis in pu b lic confidence a b o u t testing.
25. D o yo u approve or disapprove o f co m p le te disclo su re law s such a s N ew
Y o rk ’s tr u th -in - te s tin g law. which require a d m issio n s test m a k e rs to
release th e contents a n d answ ers o f th e ir tests to th e g en era l p u b lic w ithin
a specified tim e afer test a d m in istra tio n ?
M ost ex p e rt re sp o n d e n ts are n o t in favor o f tr u th - in - te s tin g legislation.
F ifty p erc en t o f ex p erts surveyed eith er so m ew h at o r stro n g ly disap p ro v e,
co m p a re d to 32 p erc en t w ho e ith e r so m e w h at o r strongly approve. Six
p erc en t are in different, a n d 12 p erc en t d id n o t resp o n d .
Em ployment Testing
T h e in c id en ce o f a p titu d e a n d intelligence testin g in e m p lo y m e n t is
difficult to m easu re, p a rtic u la rly in th e priv ate sector. S om e in fo rm a tio n
can be draw n fro m a 1975 survey o f a p p ro x im ate ly 1,300 p erso n n e l officers
o f co m p a n ie s ranging w idely in size an d type o f b u sin ess.59 Test use is
b ro k en dow n by type o f d ecision (ranging from h irin g d ecisio n s fo r u n
skilled h o u rly w orkers to e n try -le v e l a n d p ro m o tio n d ecisio n s for su p er
visory, m an ag erial, a n d professional positio n s) an d by ty p e o f em p lo y er
(in c lu d in g m a n u fa c tu re rs, reta il stores, b a n k s, a n d tr a n s p o r ta tio n a n d
c o m m u n ic a tio n s com panies). N early h a lf o f all co m p a n ie s surveyed re p o rt
159
using som e fo rm o f test in hiring decisions, w hile 24 p erc en t use tests in
d e te rm in in g p ro m o tio n s. Large c o m p an ie s are m o re fre q u e n t test users,
b u t even am o n g co m p a n ie s w ith few er th a n 100 em ployees, 30 p erc en t
a d m in iste r tests as p a rt o f th e ir hirin g p ro ce d u re , an d 18 p erc en t use th em
in d e te rm in in g p ro m o tio n s. N onetheless, m o st em p lo y ers d o n o t use tests
for m o st em p lo y m e n t decisions. (N o r are these tests usually vital to th e
em p lo y m e n t decision, as few er th a n o n e in five c o m p an ie s re p o rt dis
q u alify in g ap p lic a n ts on th e basis o f test scores alo n e.) T h e n o ta b le ex cep
tio n is in th e h irin g o f clerical w orkers, w here m o re th a n tw o -th ird s o f all
firm s use at least o n e em p lo y m e n t test, th e bu lk o f such testin g in volving
clerical ach ie v em e n t an d w ork sam ples.
A cross all categories o f decisions a n d em ployers, th e m a jo rity o f tests
used are n o n a p titu d e tests, in c lu d in g tests o f a c h ie v em e n t (jo b -sp ecific
know ledge), w ork sam ples, a n d p erso n ality inven to ries. R arely is th e p ro
p o rtio n o f em ployers re p o rtin g th e use o f general ap titu d e tests for an y o f
th ese e m p lo y m e n t decisions g reater th a n 5 percen t. H ow ever, becau se in
m o st o f these categories over 70 p erc en t o f c o m p an ie s re p o rt using n o tests
a t all, general a p titu d e tests rep rese n t a sizable p ro p o rtio n o f all tests given.
E m p lo y m en t testin g is m u c h m ore c o m m o n in th e p u b lic secto r th a n in
p riv ate industry. M ost federal, state, an d m u n ic ip a l em ployees w ork u n d er
a m e rit system involving civil service e x a m in a tio n s.60 T h ese ex am s are
p rim a rily jo b -sp e c ific a c h ie v em e n t tests, b u t a p titu d e testin g is n o t u n
c o m m o n in g o v ern m e n t em p lo y m e n t. T h e m o st w idely used em p lo y m e n t
test in th e c o u n try is th e A rm ed Services V ocational A p titu d e B attery
(ASVAB). given an n u a lly to all ca n d id a tes for A m erican m ilitary service, as
well as to h u n d re d s o f th o u sa n d s o f high school sen io rs.61 T h e test is used to
find p ro m isin g ca n d id a tes for th e m ilitary, as a screen in g device, a n d to
guide enlistees in to a p p ro p ria te o cc u p a tio n a l categories. P rio r to 1981, the
P rofessional a n d A d m in istra tiv e C a re er E x a m in a tio n (PACE), a n o th e r a p
titu d e battery, w as ta k en each year by over 150,000 ap p lica n ts for e n try level p o sitio n s in th e federal g o v e rn m e n t.62
T h e e lim in a tio n o f PACE by a 1981 c o n se n t decree is b u t on e ex am p le o f
th e sta te o f e m p lo y m e n t te stin g since th e S u p re m e C o u r t d ec isio n in
G riggs v. D u k e Power C o.63 T h e Griggs decision, discussed in C h a p te r 1,
established th e tw o -ste p process necessary for d e m o n stra tin g d isc rim in a
tio n in testin g litigation b ro u g h t u n d e r T itle V II o f th e C ivil R ights A ct o f
1964 (p ro h ib itin g u n fa ir la b o r practices): the p la in tiff ca rrie s th e b u rd e n o f
establishing a p rim a facie case o f d isc rim in a tio n th ro u g h adverse im p act.
(T h e S u p rem e C o u rt has ruled th a t in T itle VII cases in v o lv in g testing,
plaintiffs d o n o t have to show d isc rim in a to ry in te n t, o n ly adverse im
p act.)64 O nce established, th e b u rd en is on th e d e fe n d a n t to show th a t th e
test in q u estio n is a “ reasonable m easure o f jo b p erfo rm an ce .”
160
The IQ Controversy
T h e C o u rt left u n an sw e re d th e q u e stio n s o f precisely w h at co n s titu te s
ad v erse im p a c t a n d a re a so n a b le m e a su re o f jo b p e rfo rm a n c e , b u t in
G riggs an d su b se q u e n t litigation c o u rts have in te rp re te d adverse im p a c t
broadly, w hile req u irin g strict validity c rite ria .65 C o n seq u en tly , o nly a sm all
fractio n o f e m p lo y m e n t tests have ever w ith sto o d legal challenge. E stab
lish m en t o f th e p rim a facie case req u ires statistical evid en ce, b u t w h eth e r
o n e co m p ares pass/fail ratio s betw een g ro u p s o r n o te s differences in th e
racial co m p o sitio n o f th e successful an d unsuccessfu l a p p lic a n t pools, in
ferior p e rfo rm a n c e by m in o rity g roups o n sta n d ard iz ed tests is n o t difficult
to d o c u m e n t. T h e b u rd e n o f p ro o f in T itle V II litig atio n th e re fo re g enerally
falls on th e test u ser to d e m o n stra te th a t th e te st is sufficiently related to jo b
p e rfo rm a n c e to ju stify its use.
W hile sufficient validity criteria have nev er been clearly estab lish ed , th e
S u p re m e C o u rt, in a su b se q u en t case (A lb e m a rle P aper Co. v. M o o d y )66
e n d o rs e d th e E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o rtu n ity C o m m is s io n ’s (E E O C )
G uidelines on E m p lo y m e n t Testing Procedures. A s n o te d , th e E E O C
Guidelines rely heavily on th e APA’s Standards fo r E ducational an d Psy
chological Tests , establishing a set o f m in im u m v alid atio n p ro ced u res th a t
m o st em ployers find im possible to satisfy com pletely. T h e G u id elin es re
q u ire e ith e r criterio n , c o n te n t, o r c o n s tru c t v alid atio n relatin g to im p o r
ta n t aspects o f jo b p e rfo rm an ce , as well as an in v estig atio n o f “ fairn ess”
(differential p red ic tio n o r validity) to m in o rity g ro u p s in a p p ro p ria te cir
cu m stan ces. T h e v alid atio n studies generally m u st m eet th e APA S tand
ards, w hich w ere in te n d ed for test d evelopers w ith sufficient reso u rces for
so p h isticated p sy c h o m etric analyses. In situ a tio n s w here a d e q u a te v alid a
tio n is n o t possible for th e jo b in q u estio n , rep rese n tin g th e vast m a jo rity o f
cases, th e em p lo y er m u st d e m o n stra te sufficient sim ilarity betw een th e jo b
an d tho se for w hich th e te st is ad e q u ately validated . W ith such strin g e n t
criteria, an d th e c o u rts’ ow n d iscretio n , tests w ith adverse im p a ct have been
stru ck dow n by v irtu e o f alm o st every failure a t ju stifica tio n im a g in a b le.67
In 1973, th e Iowa S u p rem e C o u rt, in a review o f federal d ecisions, “ failed
to disclose a single ex a m p le o f a w ritten test passing m u ste r u n d e r th e
[EE O C ] g u idelines for valid atio n .”68
W hile th e re has been so m e loosening o f these re q u ire m e n ts in p o s t-
Albem arle decisions, th e recen t h isto ry o f e m p lo y m e n t testin g litig atio n is
m a rk e d by a g reat deal o f in co n sisten cy a n d ju d ic ia l m is u n d e rsta n d in g o f
th e n a tu re o f v a lid a tio n .69 (P a rt o f th e p ro b lem stem s from th e 1976 S u
p rem e C o u rt decision in W ashington v. D avis,10 in w hich th e C o u rt ac
ce p te d v a lid a tio n m e th o d s in c o n siste n t w ith th e G u id elin es in a case
in volving a co n stitu tio n a l challenge. Low er c o u rts are split as to w h eth e r
less strin g e n t re q u ire m e n ts m ay also be accep tab le in T itle VII ac tio n s.)71
B ecause m ost em ployers are n o t able to provide th e k in d o f criterio n val
161
id a tio n necessary to ju stify th e use o f general ap titu d e tests for m o st jo b s,
em p loyers have m o re a n d m ore had to rely on ach ie v em e n t tests an d
n arro w w ork sam ples for w hich they can show c o n te n t validity. M oreover,
even th e existence o f extensive criterio n v alid atio n m ay be insufficient to
d efend a test against charges o f d isc rim in a tio n ; w itness th e cases o f PACE
an d th e N ew York C ity police sergeant's exam describ ed in C h a p te r 1. For
m an y em ployers, th e response to th e clim a te o f fear cre ate d by testin g
litig ation an d g o v ern m e n t p ro n o u n c e m e n ts a b o u t testin g has been to e lim
in ate e m p lo y m e n t testin g altogether. T h e em p lo y er survey p resen ted at th e
b eg in n in g o f th is section was c o n d u c te d in 1975. T h re e -q u a rte rs o f th e
em ployers surveyed re p o rte d th a t they had reduced th e size o f th e ir e m
p lo y m e n t testin g p ro g ra m s d u rin g th e prev io u s five years. N o d o u b t a
sim ila r survey c o n d u c te d tod ay w ould find th e in cid en ce o f em p lo y m e n t
te stin g fu rth e r d im in ish ed .
Tests o f intelligence a n d general a p titu d e are p ro b ab ly th e easiest targ ets
o f T itle VII suits, because th ey b ea r th e least o b v io u s rela tio n to jo b p erfo r
m an ce; th ey lack b o th face a n d c o n te n t validity, an d are also less likely to
have been validated against specific jo b - re la te d criteria. T h e iro n y o f c o u rt
d ecisions in th is are a is th a t tests o f general in tellectu al ab ility are p ro b ab ly
th e best available criterio n o f jo b p erfo rm an ce . Jo h n H u n te r an d his co l
leagues have review ed th e available evidence o n th e v alidity o f v ario u s
p red ic to rs o f jo b p erfo rm an ce , in c lu d in g peer ratings, interview s, b iog
rap h ical d ata, college G PA , a n d ach ie v em e n t a n d w o rk -s a m p le tests.72 F or
e n try -le v e l positions, across all jo b categories, general ab ility tests are th e
b est p re d ic to r o f jo b p erfo rm an ce . For p ro m o tio n decisions, w ork sam ples
are slightly b e tte r pred icto rs. M oreover, general ability tests have th e a d v a n
tage over specific a c h ie v em e n t a n d w ork sam p le tests in th a t they are valid
p red ic to rs o f successful p e rfo rm a n c e for nearly all jo b s in all settings. T h u s,
an em ployer using on ly w ork sam p le tests in hirin g em ployees m ay be able
to select tho se w ho will p erfo rm well a t a c e rta in e n try level p o sitio n , b u t
loses m u ch o f th e ability pro v id ed by general a p titu d e tests to d isc rim in a te
b etw een those w ho will be m o st p ro m o ta b le to o th e r jo b s.
T h e e lim in a tio n o f e m p lo y m e n t tests th a t b ea r little rela tio n to jo b p er
fo rm a n ce , b u t w hich have adverse im p a c t on c e rta in m in o rity groups, is an
ad m ira b le goal. Such test m isuse u n d o u b te d ly occurs, as em ployers, m u c h
like teachers, are often to o q u ic k to assu m e th a t a given te st m easu res
ab ilities im p o rta n t to th e ir purp o se. In th is sense th e E E O C a n d T itle V II
have been successful w atchdogs. U n fo rtu n a tely , overzealous in te rp re ta tio n
o f T itle V II by th e c o u rts has led to the e lim in a tio n o f m an y useful testin g
p ro g ra m s as well. T h e original m o tiv atio n b eh in d sta n d a rd iz e d te stin g in
em p lo y m e n t, as in ed u c a tio n , w as to p ro m o te th e allo ca tio n o f reso u rces
acco rd in g to m erit, an d th u s provide m o re equal o p p o rtu n ity w ith regard
162
The IQ Controversy
to race, class, an d e th n ic b ack g ro u n d . Ironically, selection on th e basis o f
m e rit th u s defined has q u ite often led to u n d e rre p re se n ta tio n o f m in o rity
g ro u p s in society’s m ost d esired positions. T h ro u g h strict e n fo rc e m e n t o f
T itle VII, alo n g w ith cases like L a rry P., th e c o u rts have chosen to value
eq u a lity o f o u tc o m e over eq u a lity o f o p p o rtu n ity .
26. A p p ro x im a te ly w hat p roportion o f all em p lo y m en t tests given do yo u
believe are im pro p erly validated fo r th e pu rp o se fo r which th e y are used?
N o n re sp o n se rate to th is q u estio n is high (34.3 percent), b u t am o n g
th o se w ho respond. 76 p erc en t feel th a t th e p ro p o rtio n o f e m p lo y m e n t tests
th a t are n o t p ro p erly in v a lid a ted is m o d e ra te o r w orse. O n ly 4 p erc en t o f
resp o n d e n ts believe th a t th e in c id en ce o f im p ro p e rly v alid ated em p lo y
m e n t tests is insignificant, a n d 19 p erc en t say th e p ro p o rtio n is sm all b u t
significant. T h e response to th is q u estio n is th e m o st negative ratin g o f tests
in th e en tire survey. T hose w ho are co n d u c tin g research o r w ho have w rit
te n articles o n em p lo y m e n t testin g (N = 121) d o n o t give significantly dif
feren t responses to th is questio n .
Two aspects o f q u estio n 26 deserve c o m m e n t. F irst, th e q u e stio n asks
a b o u t e m p lo y m e n t tests in general, m o st o f w hich are n o t tests o f general
a p titu d e o r intelligence. S econd, “ im p ro p e rly v alid ated ” is n o t necessarily
“ invalid.” It m ay be th a t m a n y c u rre n t tests th a t have n o t been su b jected to
ap p ro p ria te v alid atio n stu d ies m ay tu r n o u t to be valid w hen such stu d ies
are do n e. T h e w ork o f Jo h n H u n te r et al. in d icates th a t th is is p ro b ab ly th e
case for tests o f general a p titu d e . T h is possibility d o es an em p lo y er little
good, however, w hen he is in c o u rt try in g to d efen d h im se lf ag ain st charges
o f racial d isc rim in a tio n .
Should Intelligence Testing Be Banned?
Intelligence te stin g has n o sh o rtag e o f critics w ho are ready to call for its
im m e d ia te ab o litio n in all o r m o st o f its ap p licatio n s. In 1968, th e A ssocia
tio n o f Black P sychologists (A B P) called for a m o ra to riu m on th e use o f
psychological an d ed u c atio n al tests in schools. Two years later, 650 m e m
bers o f th e N a tio n a l E d u ca tio n A ssociation (N E A ) m a d e a sim ila r req u est.
L a r r y P. v. W ilson R ile s led to th e im p o sitio n o f ju s t su ch a b an on in te l
ligence testing in C alifo rn ia. R a lp h N a d e r a n d associates, a n d o th ers, have
severely criticized th e use o f a p titu d e tests in ad m issio n s to h ig h er e d u c a
tio n , asking for a re d u c tio n in th e im p o rta n c e placed on tests in ad m issio n s
d ecisions, a n d th e rep la ce m en t o f a p titu d e tests w ith tests o f ac h iev em en t.
Finally, th e e lim in a tio n o f em p lo y m e n t testin g b eco m es a reality w ith al
m o st every piece o f T itle VII te stin g litigation. N o t in clu d ed in th ese ex am -
163
pies are th e m u ltitu d e o f p u b lis h e d c ritiq u e s o f te stin g th a t a t least
im p licitly call for its e lim in a tio n .73
A serious appraisal o f th e q u estio n posed in th e title o f th is section
req u ires an e x a m in a tio n o f th e a ltern ativ es to intelligence testin g in each o f
its ap p licatio n s. We have seen th a t intelligence tests are in m a n y in stan ces
ec o n o m ic al tools th a t aid in th e assig n m en t o f reso u rces acco rd in g to an
objective criterio n o f m erit. We have also seen th a t th ese tools can be
ab u sed, a n d th a t they often have adverse im p a c t on th e e d u c a tio n a l an d
o cc u p atio n al sta tu s o f m em b ers o f m in o rity groups. T h e critical q u estio n is
w h eth e r the social cost o f m ak in g im p o rta n t ed u c atio n al a n d o cc u p atio n al
decisions w ith o u t the use o f ap titu d e a n d intelligence tests is less th a n we
are now paying w ith them .
As a d irect result o f th e A B P ’s request for a m o ra to riu m o n testin g in
schools, th e APA co m m issio n ed a p anel to investigate th e uses an d abuses
o f testin g in schools an d for ad m issio n s to higher e d u c a tio n .74 T h e panel
identified m an y abuses in test practice, an d re c o m m e n d e d steps be ta k e n to
cu rb m isuse an d m is in te rp re ta tio n . T hey also ex a m in e d th e q u estio n o f
racial bias in tests, th e A B P ’s p rim a ry c o n te n tio n , an d fo u n d no ev idence
fo r su b sta n tia l d iffe ren tia l p red ic tiv e v alid ity fo r b lack s a n d w h ites on
sta n d a rd tests o f intelligence. Finally, a n u m b e r o f a ltern ativ es to c o m
m o n ly used intelligence tests w ere discussed, in c lu d in g ra n d o m lotteries,
p rio r ex p e rie n c e , d e m o g ra p h ic ca te g o rie s, su b je c tiv e e v a lu a tio n s , a n d
grades. T he p a n e l’s co n c lu sio n w as th a t n o n e o f th e a ltern ativ es w as ca p a
ble o f p e rfo rm in g th e fu n c tio n o f ob jectiv e assessm en t in c u rric u lu m
p la ce m en t an d college ad m issio n s at a reaso n ab le cost:
the available alternatives to testing require either that we abandon the func
tions supported by testing or that we abandon the only techniques available
for even-handed appraisal under conditions which make educational oppor
tunity widely available at a cost that is within reach of both the prospective
applicant and the educational institutions.7-
O ne so lu tio n to th e d ile m m a posed by th e p an el is to a b a n d o n c e rta in o f
th e fu n ctio n s su p p o rte d by testing, as in th e ab o litio n o f track in g an d
sep arate E M R classes. T h e altern ativ e, chosen by th e c o u rt in L a rry P., is
to “ ab a n d o n th e on ly te ch n iq u e s available for e v e n -h a n d e d ap p raisal.” T h e
c o u rt in this case, as in o th e r in stan ces o f affirm ativ e ac tio n , placed the
social benefits to be derived from equal re p re se n ta tio n in special classes
above th e benefits o f m o re objective assessm ent. P u t a n o th e r way, th e costs
o f adverse im p a ct w ere seen as greater th a n th e costs o f m e n tally reta rd e d
ch ild ren n o t being placed in E M R classes.
In th e case o f ad m issio n s to higher ed u c a tio n , th e a ltern ativ es m ay n o t
164
The IQ Controversy
be as drastic. U n til th e n u m b e r o f ap p lica n ts to colleges a n d pro fessio n al
schools b ecom es equal to o r less th a n th e n u m b e r o f spaces, ad m issio n s
decision m ak in g c a n n o t be elim in a te d , b u t th e re m ay be rea so n ab le alter
n a tiv e s to a p titu d e tests. It h as been n o te d th a t a c h ie v e m e n t te sts d e
veloped by th e ETS m ay actu ally pred ict college g rades b e tte r th a n th e
SAT.76 In a d d itio n to in creased pred ictiv e validity, th e use o f a ch ie v em e n t
ra th e r th a n a p titu d e tests has th e advantage o f b e tte r p u b lic im age. N o t
o n ly are charges o f test bias less likely, b u t, it is arg u ed , stu d e n ts will be
m o re in clin ed to ta k e te st p re p a ra tio n , a n d h en ce high school, m o re se
riously.77 T h e co m p lete elim in a tio n o f testin g for college ad m issio n s is
p ro b ab ly n o t feasible as long as ac ad e m ic p e rfo rm a n c e rem a in s a criterio n
o f selection. T h e e lim in a tio n o f testin g will necessarily lead to a d ecrease in
p red ictiv e validity (th o u g h th is m ay be irre le v an t for th o se schools th a t
a c cep t th e vast m a jo rity o f applicants). O u r ex p e rt sa m p le is nearly u n a n
im o u s in th e b elief th a t ad m issio n s tests sh o u ld c o n tin u e to be used in
m a k in g selective ad m issio n s decisions.
T h e C o m m itte e o n A bility T esting o f th e N a tio n a l R esearch C o u n cil
(N R C ) has recen tly p u b lish ed its re p o rt on th e uses, co n seq u en ces, an d
contro v ersies su rro u n d in g ability te stin g .78 A large p a r t o f th e re p o rt is
co n c e rn e d w ith te stin g p ractices in e m p lo y m e n t, a n d m u c h as th e APA
p anel did w ith test use in schools, th e N R C c o m m itte e co n sid ered alter
natives to e m p lo y m e n t testing. D espite o b v io u s ab u ses in e m p lo y m e n t
testing, th e c o m m itte e w as able to find “ n o ev id en ce o f a lte rn a tiv e s to
te stin g th a t are equally in fo rm ativ e, eq u ally a d e q u a te technically, a n d also
ec o n o m ic al a n d p olitically viable.” 79 J o h n a n d R o n d a H u n te r have recen tly
a tte m p te d to m easu re th e utility, in d o llars o f pro d u ctiv ity , o f using v ario u s
p red ic to rs in em p lo y m e n t decisio n s.80 T h ey e stim a te th a t if th e federal
g o v ern m e n t w ere to use general a p titu d e tests as th e sole criterio n for
h irin g decisions, it w ould realize a net gain in u tility o f $15.61 b illio n p er
year over ra n d o m selection o f em ployees. T h e n ex t best a ltern ativ e, ac tu al
jo b try o u ts, im proves u tility by $12.49 billion . T h u s, by using g eneral
a p titu d e tests ra th e r th a n th e n ex t best a lte rn a tiv e , w hich is o ften n o t
feasible, th e federal g o v e rn m e n t w ould be $3.12 b illio n m o re p ro d u ctiv e
each year.
27. Test use.
F or each o f seven c o m m o n intelligence a n d a p titu d e test uses, re sp o n d
en ts w ere asked to in d ic ate th e im p o rta n c e th e y felt such tests sh o u ld have,
relative to th e role they now have. R atin g s w ere m ad e o n a 7 - p o in t scale,
w here 1 rep resen ted a “ Severely red u ced ro le,” 4 was “ R e m a in a b o u t th e
sa m e ,” a n d 7 w as “ Severely in creased role.” M ean ratin g s fo r each te st use
165
TABLE 5.2
Preferred Level of Intelligence and Aptitude Test Use
Use
Diagnosis and special education planning in elemen
tary and secondary schools
Tracking decisions in elementary and secondary
schools
College admissions
G raduate and professional school admissions
Vocational counseling
Hiring Decisions
Promotion decisions
Mean
Rating“
%
Responding
3.98
(1.22)b
3.43
(1.43)
3.94
(1.14)
3.96
(1.27)
4.01
(1.32)
3.36
(1.5)
2.89
(1.54)
79.6
77.9
85.3
8 4 .4
77.3
74.3
73.2
al = "S ev erely re d u c e d ro le," 4 = “ R e m a in a b o u t th e sam e ,” a n d 7 = “ Severely increased role.”
bN u m b e rs in p a re n th e se s are sta n d a rd d e v ia tio n s.
are p resen ted in T able 5.2. W ith th e exception o f testin g in em p lo y m e n t,
an d to a lesser ex ten t in trac k in g decisions in e le m e n ta ry a n d seco n d ary
schools, ex p e rts seem generally satisfied w ith th e statu s q u o in test use. (O f
co u rse th e sta tu s q u o , p articu la rly in e m p lo y m e n t testin g , rep resen ts less
te st use th a n it d id tw enty years ago.) T h ere ap p e ars to be a general b elief in
th e validity o f intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests for v ario u s ed u c atio n al p u r
poses, d espite the p erc ep tio n th a t these tests are often m isused in e le m e n
ta ry a n d seco n d ary schools.
U n lik e th e p rev io u s q u estio n , tho se w ho are c o n d u c tin g research o r w ho
have w ritten a b o u t e m p lo y m e n t tests have b e tte r th in g s to say a b o u t th em
th a n th e rest o f th e e x p e rt p o p u la tio n . E m p lo y m e n t te stin g e x p e rts
(N = 121) rate th e use o f a p titu d e tests for b oth h irin g d ecisio n s (4.11 vs.
3.11, p < .0001) an d p ro m o tio n decisions (3.56 vs. 2.67, p < .0001) higher
th a n d o th e rest o f th e sam ple. T hese results n o tw ith stan d in g , an d e x a m in
ing th e responses to th is section o f th e q u e stio n n a ire as a w hole, em p lo y
m e n t testin g ap p e ars to be th e area in w hich ex p erts perceive th e m ost
p ro b lem s (even em p lo y m e n t testin g ex p e rts favor d ecreased use o f tests in
m a k in g p ro m o tio n decisions).
The Effects o f D em ographic and Background Variables
Specific E xp e rtise
In ad d itio n to su b stan tiv e q u estio n s a b o u t testing, th e q u e s tio n n a ire
c o n ta in e d tw o se ctio n s o f d e m o g ra p h ic q u estio n s. T h e first c o n c e rn e d
166
The IQ Controversy
“ P rofessional A ctivities a n d In v o lv em en t w ith In tellig en ce Testing.” We
asked these q u e stio n s a b o u t specific to p ic s o f research a n d a u th o rsh ip a n d
o th e r ex periences w ith testing, a n d sam p led from a w ide v ariety o f ex p e rt
groups, in o rd e r to e x a m in e th e effects o f m o re specific ex p ertise on q u es
tio n n a ire responding. For each o f th e su b stan tiv e q u e s tio n s discussed in
th is a n d the prev io u s th ree ch ap ters, c o m p ariso n s w ere m a d e betw een th e
responses o f tho se ex p e rts w hose experiences w ere o f p a rtic u la r relevance
an d th e rest o f th e sam ple. T h u s, for exam ple, th o se w ho w ere c o n d u c tin g
research o r w ho h ad w ritten on bias in intelligence tests served as specific
ex p e rts for th e test bias q u estio n s. F or so m e q u estio n s, specific ex p erien ces
a n d affiliations, such as having ad m in istered a g ro u p o r in d iv id u al in te l
ligence test, o r being a m e m b e r o f th e C ogn itiv e Science Society, also
served to classify re sp o n d e n ts a experts. F or th e m o st p a rt, th e results o f
these co m p a riso n s are n o t statistically significant. T h e im p o rta n t ex cep
tio n s have been d escribed w ith th e general results fro m each q u estio n . Even
w hen these differences are significant, th ey are n o t large.
T h e relative lack o f influ en ce o f specific exp ertise m ay be p artially th e
resu lt o f se lf-se lec tio n on th e p a r t o f resp o n d e n ts. S u b jects w ere asked to
resp o n d “ N Q ” to all q u estio n s th a t th ey did n o t feel q u alified to answ er. To
th e degree th a t subjects w ere ho n est in th e ir self-assessm en ts, re sp o n d e n ts
are even m o re ex p e rt th a n th e sam ple as a w hole. T h u s, for e x am p le, o n ly 1
o f th e 168 subjects w ho answ ered N Q to q u estio n 9 o n th e sou rces o f
h eritab ility evidence is a m e m b e r o f th e B ehavior G en e tic s A sso ciatio n , o r
is c o n d u c tin g research on o r has w ritten a b o u t th e h eritab ility o f in te l
ligence. O n th e o th e r h an d , 83 o f th e 493 w ho an sw er th is q u estio n are
ex p e rts on h eritab ility by o n e o f these criteria. Such restric tio n o f ran g e d u e
to se lf-se lec tio n m akes an y a tte m p t to a c c o u n t for w ith in -s a m p le v aria
tio n m o re difficult.
P rin c ip a l-C o m p o n en t A n a ly sis
In o rd er to facilitate fu rth e r analyses, superv ariab les w ere created from
s u b s ta n tiv e q u e s tio n re sp o n se s via p r in c i p a l- c o m p o n e n t a n a ly sis , a
m e th o d o f p a rtitio n in g varian ce very sim ila r to fac to r analysis. (See A p
p en d ix B for th e details o f th e p rin c ip a l-c o m p o n e n t a n d su b se q u en t m u lti
v a ria te an aly ses.) F o u r in te rp re ta b le fac to rs em erg e fro m th is an aly sis,
a c c o u n tin g for 12.1%, 11.3%, 9.2% , a n d 6.3% o f th e variance. T h ey w ere
labeled "T est U se fu ln e ss,” “ Test B ias,” “ P erso n al C h a ra c te ristic s,” a n d
“ Test M isuse.” T h e first fac to r reveals th e follow ing p a tte rn : b elief in c
co n sen su s a b o u t intelligence, in an a d e q u a te th e o ry o f intelligence an d ir
th e im p o rta n c e o f IQ in d e te rm in in g SES, o p p o sitio n to tr u th - in - te s t in e
laws, a n d p articu la rly high loadings for all test uses. T h e su b stan tia l lo a d
167
ings for facto r tw o are alm o st en tirely for th e vario u s test bias q u estio n s.
F acto r th ree has high loadings for all o f th e n o n in te lle c tu a l ch aracteristics
in q u estio n 8. as well as for th e sections o f q u estio n 16 d ealin g w ith bias
caused by an x iety a n d m o tiv atio n . T h e fo u rth facto r picks up all four
sou rces o f test m isuse (q u estio n 19) th a t w ere inclu d ed in th e analysis. T h e
o nly q u estio n s th a t d o n o t load on any o f th e four facto rs are n u m b e rs 5. 6,
an d 9 on ac q u ired know ledge, stability, an d th e sou rces o f h eritab ility
ev idence, the la tte r no d o u b t th e result o f to o little v aria tio n in resp o n d in g .
S u pervariables w ere fo rm ed c o rresp o n d in g to each o f th e fo u r facto rs by
c o m b in in g n o rm alize d responses to each o f th e q u e stio n s lo ad in g on each
factor. Table 5.3 presen ts c o rre la tio n s betw een th e fo u r su p erv ariab les an d
v ario us d em o g ra p h ic an d b ac k g ro u n d variables. M an y o f th ese c o rre la
tio n s are highly significant, b u t few are very large. T h e effects o f d e m o
g rap h ic a n d b a c k g ro u n d v ariab les w ere also e x a m in e d fo r each o f th e
su b stan tiv e q u e stio n s separately, an d c o rre la tio n s are n o t su b stan tia lly d if
ferent. O th e r b ack g ro u n d variables n o t show n, such as e th n ic b ac k g ro u n d
an d religious p reference, show only very low c o rre la tio n s (-.1 0 ) w ith su p er
variables.
G ender. S ev en ty -tw o p erc en t o f re sp o n d e n ts are m ale. M ales h o ld sig
n ificantly m ore tra d itio n a l p ro -te s tin g attitu d e s: they are m o re in favor o f
test use, less likely to rate tests as m isused o r biased, an d less likely to rate
n o n in te lle ctu al perso n al ch a racteristics as im p o rta n t to te st p erfo rm an ce .
Age. T h e m ean age o f re sp o n d e n ts is fifty -tw o years. Age also bears a
significant positive relatio n to tra d itio n a l p ro -te s tin g views c o n c e rn in g test
use an d m isuse. T h e negative co rre la tio n betw een age a n d Test Bias is
m arg in ally significant (p < .015).
G eneral E xpertise. D efined as th e n u m b e r o f article s o r ch a p te rs w ritten
on testin g an d related issues, general expertise, like age a n d m asculinity, is
associated w ith tra d itio n a l p ro -te stin g views. A u th o rsh ip has a significant
positive co rrela tio n w ith Test U sefulness a n d a significant negative co rrela-
TABLE 5.3
Correlations Between Supervariables and D nographic and Background Variables
Variable
Misuse
Gender3
Age
General Expertise
Political Perspective11
Media Exposure
Childhood Family Income
Test
Usefulness
Test
Bias
Personal
Characteristics
Test
- .15**
.30**
15**
.31**
.08**
- .1 0 *
- .1 0
- .0 6
- .38**
- .1 1*
.04
. 18**5st
— .06
- .13**
- .0 6
- .1 1*
.00
.15**
- .1 2 *
- .0 7
-.1 7 * *
.00
.00
“1 = M ale, 2 = Fem ale. bH ig h e r n u m b e rs c o rre s p o n d to co n se rv a tism .
* p <.01. **p< .0 0 1 .
168
The IQ Controversy
tio n w ith P ersonal C haracteristics. As w ith specific ex p ertise, th e size o f th e
g eneral expertise c o rre la tio n s are sm all relativ e to th o se o f o th e r d e m o
g rap h ic an d b ack g ro u n d variables such as gender, age, a n d p olitical per
spective.
P olitical Perspective. T h is variable in Table 5.3 rep rese n ts th e sam e su
p ervariab le described at th e en d o f th e last chapter. Political persp ectiv e is
significantly related to all su p erv ariab les excep t P erso n al C h aracteristics,
an d has th e strongest c o rre la tio n w ith these su p erv ariab les am o n g all d e
m o g rap h ic an d b ac k g ro u n d variables. Political co n serv atism is asso ciated
w ith tra d itio n a l views a b o u t th e validity a n d usefulness o f in telligence tests
an d low levels o f bias an d test m isuse. D espite b eing th e best single p red ic
to r o f su b stan tiv e q u estio n response, political persp ectiv e ac c o u n ts fo r less
th a n 10 p erc en t o f th e variance.
M e d ia E xposure. T h ir ty - th re e p e rc e n t o f re sp o n d e n ts h ad served as a
source o f in fo rm a tio n for th e new s m e d ia on intelligence testin g o r related
issues a t least o n ce d u rin g th e tw o years p rev io u s to th e survey. S m all b u t
significant negative co rre la tio n s are fo u n d betw een m e d ia ex p o su re a n d
Test Bias a n d P ersonal C haracteristics. T h ere is a m arg in ally significant
positive c o rre la tio n w ith Test U sefulness (p < .03). M ed ia ex p o su re is th u s
associated w ith slightly m o re p ro -te stin g views.
C h ild h o o d F a m ily In co m e. O n a 5 - p o in t scale w ith 1 as “ Well below
average,” a n d 5 as “ Well above average,” in c o m p a riso n to o th e r A m eric an
fam ilies at th e tim e, th e m ean ratin g o f c h ild h o o d fam ily in c o m e is 2.83
(s.d. = 1.07, r.r. = 96.8%), o r slightly below average. T h e re is a sm all b u t
significant negative c o rre la tio n betw een c h ild h o o d fam ily in c o m e a n d Test
U sefulness. In o th e r w ords, th o se w ho w ere p o o re r as ch ild ren h old slightly
m o re favorable views tow ard intelligence test use. M ak in g th e n o t u n re a
so n ab le assu m p tio n th a t b o th p resen t in c o m e a n d IQ am o n g resp o n d e n ts
are above average for th e A m eric an p o p u la tio n , it is possible th a t th o se
w ith below average ch ild h o o d fam ily in co m es see th e ir p erfo rm a n c e on
intelligence tests as having helped im prove th e ir e c o n o m ic co n d itio n .
M u ltiv a ria te A n a ly sis
Stepw ise m u ltip le regression analyses w ere p erfo rm e d w ith each o f th e
su p e rv a ria b le s as d e p e n d e n t v ariab les a n d th e d e m o g ra p h ic a n d b a c k
g ro u n d variables as p red icto rs. G iven th e sm all size o f th e c o rre la tio n s in
T able 5.3, it w as n o t exp ected th a t a c o m b in a tio n o f d em o g ra p h ic an d
b ac k g ro u n d variables w ould a c c o u n t fo r a large p ro p o rtio n o f th e d a ta
variance. In fact, n o n e o f th e regression analyses ac c o u n ts fo r m o re th a n 19
p e rc e n t o f th e varian ce in an y o f th e supervariables.
Two ex p la n a tio n s for th e w eak pred ictiv e pow er o f d e m o g ra p h ic an d
169
b ac k g ro u n d v ariables suggest them selves. T h e su p erv ariab les used as d e
p e n d e n t variables in th e regression analyses w ere fo rm e d from factors ac
c o u n tin g for a relatively sm all a m o u n t o f th e d a ta v aria n ce (39 p erc en t
total). T hese factors th erefo re d o n o t rep resen t stro n g p a tte rn s o f re sp o n d
ing, a n d o n e m ig h t expect th e superv ariab les based on th e m to be resistan t
to p red ic tio n . Sim ilarly, th e fo rm a tio n o f superv ariab les n ecessitated th e
co d in g o f m issing values (n o n resp o n ses) as the m ean o f th e rem a in in g
cases, th u s red u c in g d a ta varian ce an d m a k in g p red ic tio n m o re difficult.
T h ese ex p la n a tio n s apply only to supervariables. U n fo rtu n a tely , regression
analyses p e rfo rm e d at th e level o f th e in d iv id u al q u estio n d o n o t reveal
su b stan tia lly higher p ro p o rtio n s o f v ariance ac c o u n te d for.
W hile in som e sense d isa p p o in tin g , th e failure to su b stan tia lly p red ic t
su b stan tiv e q u estio n re sp o n d in g is in fo rm a tiv e in its ow n right. T h e low
percen tag e o f varian ce a c c o u n te d for by th e fo u r facto rs em erg in g from
p rin cip al c o m p o n e n t analysis reflects, a t best, on ly m o d e ra te c o rrela tio n s
b etw een q u e stio n s. T h ese w eak in te rc o rre la tio n s , to g e th e r w ith th e in
ab ility to p red ic t resp o n d in g fro m d em o g ra p h ic a n d b ac k g ro u n d variables,
even at th e in d iv id u al q u estio n level, in d ic ate th a t v arian ce in resp o n d in g
is largely idiosyncratic. T h is is n o t to say th a t th e re are n o ex p la n a tio n s for
th e d a ta variance, o nly th a t they are m ore likely to reside at th e level o f th e
in d iv id u al re sp o n d e n t th a n in an y general d em o g ra p h ic o r b ack g ro u n d
variables, or in u n d erly in g factors. F o rtunately, th is h aze o f u n ex p lain e d
varian ce is n o t so su b stan tia l as to ob scu re a clear p ic tu re o f ex p e rt o p in
ion.
T h e survey results described over the last fo u r ch a p te rs reveal th a t those
w ith expertise in areas related to intelligence te stin g h old generally positive
attitu d e s a b o u t th e validity a n d usefulness o f intelligence a n d a p titu d e
tests. T hese ex p e rts believe th a t such tests ad e q u ately m easu re m o st im p o r
ta n t elem e n ts o f intelligence, a n d th a t th ey d o so in a way th a t is basically
fair to m in o rity groups. Intelligence, as m e asu red by in telligence tests, is
seen as im p o rta n t to success in o u r society. Both w ith in - a n d b e tw e e n g ro u p differences in test scores are believed to reflect significant genetic
differences: for w ith in -g ro u p differences, a m a jo rity o f th e v ariatio n in IQ
is felt to be associated w ith genetic v ariatio n . Finally, th e re is s u p p o rt for
th e c o n tin u e d use o f tests at th e ir p resen t level in elem e n ta ry a n d seco n d
ary schools, an d in ad m issio n s to schools o f higher ed u c atio n .
T h e p ic tu re th a t em erg es fro m th is su rv ey is n o t w h o lly p o sitiv e,
however. O u r sam p le o f ex p e rts perceive p ro b lem s w ith th e in flu en ce o f
n o n in te lle c tu a l fac to rs on te st p e rfo rm a n c e b o th w ith in a n d b etw een
gro u ps, an d p articu la rly w ith c e rta in test use practices. T h ere is a w ide
sp read b elief in fre q u en t m is in te rp re ta tio n an d o verrelian ce o n test scores
in e le m e n ta ry an d se co n d a ry schools, practices th a t m ay have a significant
170
The IQ Controversy
effect o n stu d e n t p e rfo rm a n c e . Yet psych o lo g ists a n d e d u c a tio n a l sp e
cialists a -e generally in favor o f th e c o n tin u e d use o f intelligence a n d a p
titu d e tests in schools. T h e use o f im p ro p e rly valid ated e m p lo y m e n t tests is
believed to be c o m m o n , an d o u r sam ple, as a w hole, favors red u cin g th e
use o f intelligence an d a p titu d e tests for th is p u rp o se. T h o se w ith specific
ex p ertise a b o u t e m p lo y m e n t testing d o n o t, however, ad v o cate decreased
use, desp ite an e q u iv ale n t p erc ep tio n o f im p ro p e r v alid atio n in em p lo y
m e n t testing. T h e a ttitu d e o f these ex p e rts tow ard s e m p lo y m e n t tests is
sim ila r to th a t o f th e rest o f th e sam p le tow ards testin g in schools: th e re are
significant difficulties w ith test use, b u t they are o f insufficient m a g n itu d e
to w a rra n t an overall c u rta ilm e n t o f o therw ise useful d e c isio n -m a k in g
tools.
O n e o f th e m o re puzzlin g aspects o f o u r resu lts is th e relative lack o f
effect o f w ith in -sa m p le v ariability in expertise. O u r sam p le w o u ld seem to
vary ra th e r b ro ad ly in expertise, at least as m e asu red by au th o rsh ip , re
search, a n d ac ad e m ic specialty. T h e sam p le ran g ed from e m e ritu s p ro
fesso rs in th e APA D iv is io n o f E v a lu a tio n a n d M e a s u r e m e n t w ith
h u n d re d s o f article s a n d ch a p te rs w ritten o n a b ro a d ran g e o f testin g issues
to m e m b ers o f th e A m eric an Sociological A sso ciatio n w ith no m e asu red
ex p erien ce in testing, yet su b stan tiv e q u e stio n resp o n d in g was m o re o r less
th e sam e a m o n g all these groups. S om e o f th e d im in ish e d effect o f ex p e r
tise ca n be a ttrib u te d to se lf-selectio n , as o u tlin e d earlier. It is also possible
th a t ex p ertise sim ply is n o t a m a jo r facto r in o p in io n s a b o u t testing. T h e
im p lica tio n o f th is h ypothesis is th a t th e general p u b lic ’s view o f te stin g is
n o t significantly d ifferent from th a t o f th e experts. Wt will have m o re to say
a b o u t th is possibility in C h a p te r 8.
O u r inability to successfully p red ic t differences in i (p e rt o p in io n s a b o u t
intelligence an d testin g on th e basis o f political an d social a ttitu d e s is an
even m ore in te restin g finding. We d escribed in th e ast ch a p te r how the
rela tio n sh ip betw een p olitical perspective an d opinic s a b o u t test bias m ay
help ex p lain th e d iscrep an cy betw een these o p in ic s a n d the em p irical
d ata. E x p erts are n o t im m u n e to the influence o f p c itical ideology. O ver
all, however, ideology does n o t have a large in flu en ce o n ex p e rt o p in io n ,
desp ite th e highly p olitical clim a te su rro u n d in g testing. T h a t p o litical p er
spective ac c o u n ts for so little o f th e d a ta v arian ce, a n d th a t ex p e rts h o ld
generally p ro -te s tin g a ttitu d e s desp ite being slightly left o f ce n te r p o liti
cally, are im p o rta n t p o in ts, an d m u st be c o n tra ste d w ith th e heavy p o litical
influence a p p a re n t in p u b lic d iscussion a b o u t intelligence a n d ap titu d e
testing. T h e relative im m u n ity o f ex p e rt o p in io n a b o u t testin g to political
influence, co u p led w ith th e ir know ledge o f th e em p irica l lite ra tu re an d
firs t-h a n d experience, m akes it im p erativ e th a t th e ex p e rt voice be h eard in
th e p u b lic are n a, p articu la rly w here im p o rta n t d ecisio n s are b eing m ade.
I he Impact of Intelligence Testing
171
Political decisions th a t affect th e lives o f alm o st every m e m b e r o f society, as
th o se a b o u t intelligence an d a p titu d e testing do, need n o t be m ad e entirely,
o r even prim arily, on coldly ratio n al g rounds, b u t they m u st be in fo rm ed .
O n e o f th e p rim a ry m e ch a n ism s by w hich the p u b lic an d p u b lic policy
m ak ers becom e in fo rm ed on issues o f im p o rta n c e is th e new s m edia. We
have seen th a t ex p e rt o p in io n often co n tra sts sharp ly w ith criticism s o f
intelligence an d a p titu d e testin g an d w ith m a n y o f th e d ecisio n s ab o u t
testin g being m ad e in th e c o u rts an d legislatures. T h a t policy m ak ers seem
m o re influenced by th e critics o f testing th a n by th e o p in io n s o f ex p erts is
an in d ic atio n th a t th e ex p e rt voice is being lost som ew h ere betw een th e
halls o f ac ad e m ia a n d public policy arenas. A n e x a m in a tio n o f new s m ed ia
coverage o f testin g related issues reveals th a t th e new s m ed ia are at least
p artially to blam e for th is state o f affairs.
N otes
1. M artin G. Holmen and Richard Docter, Educational and Psychological Test
ing: A Study o f the Industry and Its Practices (New York; Russell Sage
Foundation. 1972), p. 14.
2. Beverly Anderson, “Test Use Today in Elementary and Secondary Schools,” in
Ability Testing: Uses. Consequences, and Controversies, part II, eds. Alexandra
K. Wigdor and Wendell R. G arner (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1982), pp. 232-285: Carl Dimengo, “Basic Testing Programs Used in Major
School Systems Throughout the United States in the School Year 1977-78,”
Akron Public Schools. March 1978; Janie Hall. “Survey of Large Urban Dis
tricts Regarding Use of Mental Ability Tests, 1981,” Oklahoma City Public
Schools. 1981; National Education Association. Nationwide Teacher Opinion
Poll, 1979 (Washington, DC; Author. September 1979) (ERIC ED 178 533).
3. Dimengo. p. 7.
4. Orville G. Brim. Jr. et al., American Beliefs and Attitudes About Intelligence
Testing (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969).
5. Anderson, p. 238.
6. National Education Association, p. 21.
7. Anderson, p. 238.
8. David A. Goslin. Teachers and Testing (New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
1967), p. 127.
9. James G. Ward. Teachers and Testing: A Survey o f Knowledge and Attitudes
(Washington. DC: American Federation of Teachers, July 1980) (ERIC ED 193
258), p. 4.
10. J. Yeh, “Test Use in Schools," Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate
School of Education, University of California at Los Angeles, cited in Ability
Testing: Uses, Consequences, and Controversies, part I, eds. Alexandra K. Wig
dor and Wendell R. G arner (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982).
11. T. Anne Cleary et al.. "Educational Uses of Tests with Disadvantaged Stu
dents,” American Psychologist 30 (1975):21—22; Eric Gardner, “Some Aspects
of the Use and Misuse of Standardized Aptitude and Achievement Tests,” in
Ability Testing: Uses, Consequences, and Controversies, part II, eds. Alexandra
172
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
The IQ Controversy
K. Wigdor and Wendell R. G arner (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1982), pp. 315-332; Holmen and Docter; A rthur R. Jensen, Bias in M ental
Testing {New York: Free Press, 1980), pp. 717-718.
Anderson, p. 238; Hall, p. 2.
Jensen, pp. 717-718.
Holmen and Docter, pp. 129-131.
Marjorie C. Kirkland, “The Effects of Tests on Students and Schools,” Review
o f Educational Research 41 (1971 ):303-350.
Orville G. Brim, Jr., “American Attitudes Towards Intelligence Tests,” Amer
ican Psychologist 20 (1965): 125-130; Brim et al.
Goslin, p. 133.
Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom (New
York: Holt, Rinehart. & Winston, 1968).
e.g., J. D. Elashoff and R. E. Snow, "Pygmalion" Reconsidered (Worthington,
OH: Charles A. Jones, 1971); Robert L. Thorndike, “Review of Pygmalion in
the Classroom,” American Educational Research Journal 5 (1968):708—711.
S. W. Raudenbush, “What Can Research Tell Us About the Effects of Teacher
Expectancy on Pupil IQ?” unpublished thesis, Harvard G raduate School of
Education, 1982.
Robert L. Ebel, “The Social Consequences of Educational Testing,” in Testing
Problems in Perspective, ed. Anne Anastasi (Washington, DC: American Coun
cil on Education, 1966).
Jensen, p. 718-723.
Daniel Resnick, “ History of Educational Testing,” in Ability Testing: Uses,
Consequences, and Controversies, part II, eds. Alexandra K. Wigdor and Wen
W. G. Findlay and M. M. Bryan, The Pros and Cons o f Ability Grouping
(Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1975).
Brim et al.
Goslin, pp. 98-106.
Findlay and Bryan.
D. I. Ashurst and C. Edward Meyers, “Social System and Clinical Model in
School Identification of the Educable Mentally Retarded,” in Sociobehavioral
Studies in M ental Retardation, eds. R. K. Eyman, C. Edward Meyers, and G.
Tarajan (Washington, DC: American Association of Mental Deficiency, 1973).
Jane R. Mercer, Labeling the M entally Retarded (Berkeley: University of Cal
ifornia Press, 1973).
Donald L. MacMillan. Reginald L. Jones, and Gregory E Aloia, “The Mentally
Retarded Label: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Research,” American
Journal o f M ental Deficiency 79 (1974):241.
Donald L. MacMillan and C. Edward Meyers, “Educational Labeling of H and
icapped Learners,” in Review o f Research in Education, vol. 7, ed. D. C.
Berliner (W ashington, DC: Am erican Educational Research Association,
1979), pp. 223-279.
Rogers Elliott, “The Banning of IQ Tests in California,” unpublished m an
uscript, D artm outh College, 1983.
Ibid.
Samuel L. Guskin, “Research on Labeling Retarded Persons: Where Do We Go
From Here?” American Journal o f M ental Deficiency 79 (1974):263.
Rodney Skager, “On the Use and Importance of Tests of Ability in Admission
173
to Postsecondary Education,” in Ability Testing: Uses, Consequences, and Con
troversies, part II, eds. Alexandra K. Wigdor and Wendell R. G arner (Wash
ington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982), pp. 286-314.
36. quoted in Christopher Jencks and James Crouse, “Aptitude vs. Achievement:
Should We Replace the SAT?” The Public Interest 67 (Spring 1982):22.
37. Ibid.; Allan Nairn and Associates, The Reign o f ETS: The Corporation That
M akes Up Minds (Washington, DC: Learning Research Project, 1980): David
Owen, None o f the Above: Behind the M yth o f Scholastic Aptitude (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1985); Warner V. Slack and Douglas Porter, “The Scholastic
Aptitude Test: A Critical Appraisal,” Harvard Educational Review 50 (May
1980): 154-175.
38. Educational Testing Service, Test Use and Validity (Princeton, NJ: Author,
1980), p. 7.
39. Slack and Porter, p. 170; Jencks and Crouse, pp. 32-35.
40. Skager, p. 294.
41. S. F Ford and S. Campos. Sum m ary o f Validity Data fro m the Admissions
Testing Program Validity Study Service (New York: College Entrance Exam
ination Board. 1977).
42. W. W. Willingham and H. M. Breland. “The Status of Selective Admissions,” in
Selective Admissions in Higher Education, ed. Carnegie Council on Policy
Studies in Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977).
43. Robert Klitgaard, Choosing Elites (New York: Basic Books, 1985).
44. Ibid.. p. 114.
45. Robert L. Linn, “Admissions Testing on Trial,” American Psychologist 37
(March 1982):282.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., p. 284.
48. cited in Skager.
49. Skager, Richard 1. Badger, “Prediction and Selection in Law School Admis
sions,” The University o f Chicago Law School Record 31 (Spring 1985): 16-21.
50. Owen, p. 239.
51. Samuel Messick and Ann Jungeblut, “Time and Method in Coaching for the
SAT,” Psychological Bulletin 89 (1981): 191 —216.
52. Ibid.; Rebecca DerSimonian and Nan M. Laird. “Evaluating the Effect of
Coaching on SAT Scores: A M eta-Analysis,” Harvard Educational Review 53
(February 1983): 1—15.
53. Federal Trade Commission, Boston Regional Office, S ta ff M emorandum o f the
Boston Regional Office o f the Federal Trade Commission: The Effects o f Coach
ing on Standardized Adm ission Exam inations (Boston: Author, September
1978).
54. Federal Trade Commission. Bureau of Consumer Protection. Effects o f Coach
ing on Standardized Admission Examinations: Revised Statistical Analyses o f
Data Gathered by Boston Regional Office o f the Federal Trade Commission
(Washington, DC: Author, March 1979).
55. Owen, p. 109.
56. Nairn.
57. Wigdor and Garner, part I. pp. 194-195.
58. Linn, p. 289.
59. Prentice-Hall, Inc.. / ’- / / Survey: Employee Testing and Selection Procedures—
Where Are They H eaded?(Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Author, 1975).
174
The IQ Controversy
60. Mary L. Tenopyr, “The Realities of Employment Testing,” American Psycho
logist 36 (October 1981): 1120-1121.
61. Wigdor and Garner, part I, pp. 122-123.
62. Ibid., pp. 123-127.
63. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
64. Donald N. Bersoff, “Testing and the Law,” American Psychologist 36 (October
1981): 1051.
65. Alexandra Wigdor, “Psychological Testing and the Law of Employment Dis
crim ination,” in A bility Testing: Uses, Consequences, and Controversies, part
II, eds. Alexandra K. Wigdor and Wendell R. G arner (Washington, DC: Na
tional Academy Press, 1982), pp. 39-69.
66. Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975).
67. Wigdor, pp. 63-64.
68. Quoted in Wigdor, p. 59.
69. Bersoff, pp. 1049-1053.
70. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)
71. Walter B. Connolly, Jr. and David W. Peterson, Use o f Statistics in Equal
Employment Opportunity Litigation (New York: Law Journal Seminars-Press,
1982), pp. 8.17,8.21; Cladv v. County o f Los Angeles, 770 F2d 1421 (9th Cir.
1985).
72. John E. H unter and Ronda Hunter, “ Validity and Utility of Alternative Predic
tors of Job Performance,” Psychological Bulletin 96 (1984):72-98; Frank L.
Schmidt and John E. Hunter, “ Employment Testing: Old Theories and New
Research Findings,” American Psychologist 36 (October 1981): 1128-1137.
73. e.g.. N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin, “IQ, Heritability, and Inequality,” in The
IQ Controversy, eds. N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin (New York: Pantheon,
1976), pp. 410-542; D. L. Eckberg, Intelligence and Race: The Origins and
Dimensions o f the IQ Controversy (New York: Praeger, 1979); Stephen Jay
Gould, The M ismeasure o f M an (New York: Norton, 1981); Banesh Hoffman,
The Tyranny o f Testing (New York: Collier, 1962); Paul L. Houts, ed„ The
M yth o f M easurability (New York: Hart Publishing, 1977); Joint Committee
on Testing, Testing, Testing, Testing (Washington, DC: American Association
of School Administrators, 1962); Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics o f IQ
(Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1974); Clarence J. Karier, “Testing for
Order and Control in the Corporate Liberal State,” Educational Theory 22
(1972): 154-180.
74. Cleary et al.
75. Ibid.. p. 35.
76. Slack and Porter, pp. 167-169; Jencks and Crouse, pp. 27-30.
77. Slack and Porter, p. 170; Jencks and Crouse, pp. 32-35.
78. Wigdor and Garner, parts I and II.
79. Ibid., part I, p. 144.
80. Hunter and Hunter, pp. 91-94.
6
It’s All There in Black and White: The
Extent of News M edia Coverage
T h e A rm ed Services V ocational A p titu d e B attery (ASVAB) is c u rre n tly
a d m in iste re d to all ap p lica n ts for U .S. m ilita ry service in o rd e r to d eter
m in e eligibility for e n listm e n t an d su b se q u en t classification in to v ario u s
m ilita ry o cc u p atio n s. T h e ASVAB is. as its n a m e im plies, a b a tte ry o f ten
a p titu d e subtests in areas ranging from n u m e rical o p e ra tio n s a n d w ord
know ledge to general science a n d a u to m o tiv e /sh o p in fo rm a tio n . D ifferent
service areas c o m b in e an d use these subtests in v ariou s ways, d ep e n d in g on
th e ir classification re q u irem en ts. F o u r o f th e su b tests— w ord know ledge,
p a ra g ra p h c o m p re h e n sio n , a rith m e tic rea so n in g , a n d n u m e ric a l o p e ra
tio n s— are co m b in ed to yield a single score, a n d are called th e A rm ed
Forces Q ualifying Test (A FQ T). T h e A F Q T is th e p rim a ry screen in g device
fo r all m ilita ry services; a p p lic a n ts m u st ach iev e a c e rta in m in im u m
A F Q T score in o rd e r to be eligible for en listm en t.
In 1979, the D e p a rtm e n t o f D efense c o n tra c te d w ith th e N atio n al O p in
ion R esearch C e n te r (N O R C ) to a d m in iste r th e ASVAB to a rep resen tativ e
sam p le o f eighteen to tw e n ty -th re e year olds draw n from th e A m erican
p o p u la tio n as a w hole. T h e p u rp o se o f th is exercise w as to o b ta in a n o r
m ativ e sam ple w ith w hich to c o m p a re a rm e d services ap p lica n ts. T h ese
d a ta w ould allow th e services to set sta n d a rd s for e n listm e n t an d w ould
ad d ress claim s th a t th e a ll-v o lu n te e r m ilita ry w as rec ru itin g a relatively
unsk illed group.
T h e N O R C a d m in iste re d th e test in 1980 to nearly 12,000 A m erican s,
a n d su b m itte d its rep o rt, A P rofile o f A m eric a n Y outh , in early 1982.1 T h e
re p o rt focused on tw o aspects o f th e d ata: (1) a c o m p a riso n betw een th e
P rofile sam p le a n d 1981 m ilita ry recru its on A F Q T score a n d such d e m o
g rap h ic variables as sex, rac e /e th n ic ity (w hite, black, an d H ispanic), a n d
level o f e d u c a tio n ; a n d (2) an analy sis o f d e m o g ra p h ic in flu e n ces on
ASVAB test p erfo rm an ce . T h e first o f these revealed, no d o u b t m u c h to th e
175
176
The IQ Controversy
relief o f th e D efense D e p a rtm e n t, th a t w ith in ra c ia l/e th n ic groups, m ilita ry
rec ru its had slightly higher A F Q T scores th a n th e ir c o u n te rp a rts in th e
g eneral p o p u la tio n . M ore distressing, b u t by n o m ean s su rp risin g in light o f
d a ta from o th e r sta n d ard iz ed tests, w as th a t b o th in th e P rofile sam p le an d
am o n g m ilita ry recruits, w hites on th e average o u tsc o re d H isp an ics, w ho
o u tsc o re d blacks. In th e general p o p u la tio n , th e w h ite n o rm w as a t th e
56 th percentile, m e an in g th a t 56 p erc en t o f all test ta k ers scored w orse th a n
th e average w hite. H isp an ics w ere at th e 31st percen tile, blacks at th e 2 4 th
percentile.
T h e P en tag o n n a tu ra lly w an te d to em p h asize th e c o m p a riso n betw een
m ilita ry recru its an d th e general p o p u la tio n (as well as th a t th e average
re c ru it had beco m e increasingly ed u c ated over th e p ast te n years), b u t was
w orried a b o u t th e im p a c t o f th e ra c ia l/e th n ic d ata. As a result, p riv ate
m eetings w ere held betw een R eagan a d m in istra tio n officials a n d re p re se n
tativ es o f vario u s m in o rity g ro u p s in a n tic ip a tio n o f p u b lic release o f th e
Profile study.
A W a sh in g to n P ost re p o rte r, G eo rg e W ilso n , o b ta in e d in f o rm a tio n
a b o u t th e c o n te n ts o f th e re p o rt a n d th e m in o rity g ro u p briefings before th e
D efense D e p a rtm e n t h ad m a d e an y p u b lic sta te m e n t o n th e m atter. P en
tag o n officials, u p o n being in fo rm e d by W ilson o n Friday, F eb ru ary 19,
1982, th a t he in te n d e d to p rin t a sto ry tw o days later, agreed to m e et w ith
W ilson o n th a t day an d th e n ex t to discuss th e stu d y results. M ean w h ile,
th e P entag o n q u ick ly called in vario u s specialists to help p rep a re m a teria ls
for p u b lic release o n M onday.
W ilso n ’s sto ry ap p e ars on th e fro n t page o f th e W ashington Post for
Sunday, F eb ru ary 21, u n d e r th e h ea d lin e “ Blacks Score Below W h ites on
P entag o n Test.” T h e artic le discusses th e c o m p a riso n betw een recru its a n d
th e general p o p u la tio n , as well as d e m o g ra p h ic d a ta , a n d pro v id es b a c k
g ro u n d for th e P rofile study, b u t th e lead a n d focus o f W ilso n ’s sto ry is th e
racial differences in test score. It begins, “ Y oung black m en an d w o m en d id
less th a n h a lf as well as w hites” on th e tests, a n d th ree p ara g ra p h s la ter
re p o rts th e results as black s scoring an average o f 24 “ p e rc e n t,” c o m p ared
to 56 “ p e rc e n t” for w hites a n d 31 “ p e rc e n t” for H isp an ics. W ilson had
co n fu sed “ p e rc e n t,” in d ic a tin g raw score o n th e test, w ith “ p e rc e n tile ,”
referrin g on ly to an in d iv id u a l’s ra n k in g am o n g all te st tak ers, th u s in fla t
ing th e a c tu a l score differentials. (T he average score, in percen tag e, w as in
fact 49 for blacks a n d 72 for w hites.)
P en tag o n officials are cited as stressing th a t th e tests “d o n o t m easu re
n a tu ra l in te llig e n c e o r le a r n in g p o te n tia l,” b u t o n ly “ w h a t h as b ee n
le a rn e d ” a n d “ca p ab ility to be tra in e d as a soldier.” T h e ex p la n a tio n for
these results is clearly p laced o n th e in fe rio r q u ality o f black e d u c atio n .
The Extent of News Media Coverage
177
W ilson also describes th e R eagan a d m in is tra tio n ’s fears a b o u t releasing th e
test results, an d n otes th e m eetings w ith m in o rity rep resen tativ es.
L y n ne S ussm an has p rovided an extensive analysis o f press coverage o f
th e Profile o f A m eric a n Youth study, in c lu d in g interview s w ith th e jo u r
nalists, g o v ern m e n t officials, a n d social scientists involved an d an e x a m
in a tio n o f alm o st fifty new s stories from new spapers, m agazines, a n d tele
visio n b ro a d c a sts a ro u n d th e c o u n try .2 She n o te s th a t W ilso n ’s story,
ca rrie d on the W ashington Post an d A ssociated Press w ires o n th e day o f
p u b lic a tio n , b e c a m e a m a jo r so u rce for S u n d ay n ig h t telev isio n new s
b ro ad c asts a n d m a n y M onday m o rn in g new sp ap er sto rie s.1 A m o n g th ese is
a N e w York T im es sto ry by C harles M o h r en title d “ V olunteers in A rm ed
F orces Test A bove A verage’, ” in w hich M o h r rep eats W ilso n ’s e rro r by
re p o rtin g “ p e rc e n t” instead o f “ p erc en tile” an d claim s th a t “black yo u th s
scored only a b o u t h a lf as well as w hites.”
N o n etheless, the T im e s story, th o u g h re p o rtin g th e racial d ata, re p re
sen ts a change o f focus from th e Post rep o rt. S ussm an identifies fo u r dif
feren t angles ch o sen by jo u rn a lis ts in covering th e P rofile story.4 T h ey are,
in o rd e r o f frequency: (1) ra c ia l/e th n ic differences in A F Q T score, (2) c o m
pariso n o f civilian a n d re c ru it test scores an d th e rep resen tativ en ess o f th e
a ll-v o lu n te e r force, (3) th e possible genetic basis o f ra c ia l/e th n ic score
differentials, an d (4) th e failure o f U .S. schooling for m in o rities.
T h e c iv ilia n -re c ru it co m p ariso n angle, exem plified by th e T im e s story,
was, o f course, th e P entagon's line. It w as th e p o in t P en tag o n sp o k esm en
trie d to em p h asize in th e ir M onday press conference, th o u g h a flood o f
q u e s tio n s a b o u t th e b la ck /w h ite score difference p rec lu d ed as co m p lete a
statistical e x p lan a tio n as th e re p o rt a u th o rs w ould have liked. In ad e q u ate
u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e statistics involved m ay explain a ra th e r rem a rk a b le
o m issio n in press re p o rts o f th e Profile study. Jo u rn a lists p resu m ab ly are
d isin clin ed to believe m u ch o f w h at they are to ld by g o v ern m e n t agencies
try in g to defend c u rre n t practices. Yet re p o rte rs rep eated th e P en tag o n
claim th a t recru its w ere equal o r su p e rio r to the general p o p u la tio n on th e
AFQT. T h is rep e titio n o c c u rre d despite th e facts, know n to rep o rters, th a t
th e c iv ilia n -r e c r u it c o m p a riso n s w ere m a d e o n ly w ith in ra c ia l/e th n ic
gro u p s, th a t blacks scored su b stan tia lly low er th a n w hites in b o th p o p u la
tio n s, a n d th a t blacks are greatly o v errep rese n ted in th e m ilita ry in c o m
p ariso n to th e ir p ro p o rtio n o f th e general p o p u la tio n . T h ese d ata, ta k en
together, in d icate th a t th e average A F Q T score across a ll m ilita ry recru its
w as low er th a n in th e general p o p u la tio n . T h is co n c lu sio n is n o t reach ed in
an y o f th e Profile new s stories.
A m o re grievous statistical e rro r is G eorge W ilso n ’s co n fu sio n over th e
p e rc e n t/p e rc e n tile d istin c tio n . W ilso n ’s m istak e is u n fo rtu n a te because it
178
The IQ Controversy
exaggerated an already p e rn ic io u s p ro b lem a n d m a d e th e P rofile d a ta seem
even m o re inflam m atory. T h e u n critica l m a n n e r in w hich th is e rro r was
p ro p ag ated th ro u g h o u t th e c o u n try by o th e r eq u ally u n in fo rm e d jo u r
n alists is an ex a m p le o f how te ch n ic al issues are m isre p re sen ted by th e
p o p u la r press, often w ith p o te n tia lly d am ag in g co n seq u en ces. T h e P o s t’s
e rra tu m , p u b lish ed five w eeks later, is a case o f to o little to o late.
T h e ra c ia l/e th n ic differences in te st scores w ere n o t, however, th e m o st
volatile aspect o f th e P rofile rep o rt. T h a t d istin c tio n b elongs to th e a u th o rs’
a tte m p t to ex p lain these score differentials. E m p h asis w as p laced o n so
c io cu ltu ra l differences, b u t th e possibility o f gen etic in flu en ces w as raised.
N e ith e r th e Post story, n o r an y o f th e o th e rs p u b lish ed o r b ro ad c ast th a t
S unday o r th e follow ing day m akes an y m e n tio n o f th is issue, b u t su b se
q u e n t stories sen t o u t over th e L o s A n g eles T im e s new s service, in th e
B oston G lobe, a n d in th e H is p a n ic -o rie n te d L a R a z a highlight th e genetic
h ypothesis. In th e L a R a z a story, w h at h a d b een o n e p o ssibility raised in
th e c o n te x t o f m a n y ex p lan a tio n s, becam e th e P e n ta g o n ’s “ assu m p tio n
th a t th e p o o r results o f H isp a n ics a n d blacks in th e test are cau sed by
h e re d ita ry a n d genetic differences.”
(S h o rtly afte r th e N O R C re p o rt o n d e m o g ra p h ic influences o n ASVAB
scores w as released to th e press, o n e o f th e a u th o rs o f th e re p o rt expressed
his d ism ay to L y n n e S ussm an over th e way th e gen etic h y p o th esis h ad been
h an d led by th e press. In a longer version o f th e P rofile re p o rt m ad e avail
able to th e general p u b lic by th e D efense D e p a rtm e n t in F eb ru ary 1984,
th e possibility o f genetic influences is explicitly ru led o u t.)5
N u m e ro u s aspects o f press coverage o f th e P rofile o f A m eric a n Youth
stu d y d e m o n stra te th e way in w hich o rg an iz atio n al c o n stra in ts p laced on
jo u rn a lists, as well as th e ir ow n values, can in terfere w ith a c c u ra te an d
b alan ced coverage o f scientific issues;
1.
T h e d ecision by G eorge W ilson a n d th e ed ito rs o f th e W ashington Post
to em p h asize th e racial differences in test scores, a n d to p u t th e sto ry o n th e
fro n t page. It is virtu ally ax io m atic am o n g tho se w h o stu d y th e new s m ed ia
th a t decisions a b o u t new s coverage are influen ced by th e desire to a ttra c t
rea d ers a n d view ers.6 “ N ew sw o rth in ess” is th e re fo re e n h a n c e d by th e
sh ocking a n d /o r contro v ersial n a tu re o f an y story. As G eorge W ilson ex
p la in ed to L y n ne S ussm an;
[the black-white score differential] was the most explosive part of the re
port—the part that worried the White House and Pentagon the most as
evidenced by their efforts to brief black organizations before the report be
came public. Here was the first in-depth docum entation of the differences,
according to the Pentagon, which have provoked debate for decades. This
made that part of the report more newsworthy and more interesting to read
ers than what turned out to be the Pentagon’s lead in its news release—
179
basically a self-endorsement of the representativeness of its All-Volunteer
Force.7
T h a t o th e r new s sources did n o t choose to cover th e sto ry as th e Post did,
b u t ra th e r rep eated th e P entagon line a b o u t c iv ilia n -re c ru it c o m p ariso n ,
o r em p h asized the h o tte r to p ic o f genetic influences, is an in d ic atio n b o th
th a t W ilso n ’s perspective is n o t an in ev itab le result o f jo u rn a lis tic c o n
stra in ts a n d th a t re p o rtin g o f an y given sto ry is influen ced by m a n y facto rs
o th e r th a n th e events them selves.
A m o n g these factors are jo u rn a lis ts ’ ow n views o f w h at ev en ts are im p o r
ta n t a n d th e ir ideological visions o f the way th e w orld sh o u ld be. F lerb ert
G a n s has identified a series o f e n d u rin g values a n d reality ju d g m e n ts th a t
guide th e selection o f new s stories a n d th e focus o f coverage.8 T hese values,
no d o u b t shared by m a n y o th e r A m erican s, in c lu d e a b elief in in d iv id u
a lism — an em p h asis on th e u n iq u e n ess o f each perso n an d on in d iv id u al
in itia tiv e — a n d an official n o rm o f racial in te g ra tio n . R o b e rt L ichter,
S tanley R o th m a n . an d L in d a L ichter, in th e ir rec en t T h e M e d ia E lite , n o te
how th e rise to p ro m in e n c e o f a pow erful n a tio n a l m ed ia w as significantly
in flu enced by coverage o f th e civil rights m o v em en t, in w hich th e new s
m e d ia ’s role as “ p a tro n s o f th e o p p resse d ” had a su b stan tia l effect on th e
passage o f th e Civil R ights A ct o f 1964.9 T h e testin g en terp rise a n d th e d a ta
it g en erates often a p p e a r to violate these sta n d ard s. By r a n k -o rd e rin g p eo
ple acco rd in g to score, sta n d ard iz ed tests im ply th a t so m e peo p le are b etter
th a n others. T h e possibility th a t th e re is a genetic basis to these scores
fu rth e r im plies (in th e m in d s o f m any) th a t th e re is little th e in d iv id u al can
d o to im prove th e situ atio n . D ata on differences in average test score b e
tw een racial a n d e th n ic g roups are d e trim e n ta l to th e ac h ie v em e n t o f full
racial in te g ratio n as long as these scores are used to m ak e im p o rta n t e d u c a
tio n a l an d o cc u p atio n al decisions. D iscussion o f a possible gen etic in flu
en ce on racial differences in test score is a n tith e tic a l to b o th in d iv id u alism
an d racial in te g ratio n , an d is th erefo re m o st new sw orth y a n d m o st likely to
be re p o rte d p ejorativ ely (see th e d iscussion o f th e B oston G lobe story,
below).
2.
By p u ttin g th e sto ry on th e fro n t page o f th e p ap e r a n d over th e w ire
w ith a head lin e em p h asizin g b la c k -w h ite differences, th e Post en su re d th a t
th e sto ry w ould receive n a tio n a l a tte n tio n . In his stu d y o f netw ork TV
new s a n d n a tio n a l new sm agazines, H e rb e rt G a n s rep o rts th a t th e m a jo r
n ew sp ap ers are o ften th e so u rce o f sto rie s for th ese in s titu tio n s, p a r
ticu larly w hen these p ap ers have “sc o o p ed ” th e rest o f th e m ed ia. O n th e
ev en in g o f the Post story, th e N B C N ig h tly N ew s re p o rte d th a t “ young
blacks did only h a lf as well as w hites in a g o v e rn m e n t-sp o n so re d test o f
m a th an d verbal skills.” 10 T hese results w ere sim ilarly re p o rte d on th e CBS
E ven in g N ew s an d in N ew sw eek a n d U.S. N ew s a n d W orld R eport.
180
The IQ Controversy
3. W ilso n ’s p e rc e n t/p e rc e n tile e rro r an d its p ro p ag a tio n reflect at least
th ree aspects o f new s m ed ia re p o rtin g th a t ca n have p a rtic u la rly d elete ri
o u s c o n se q u e n c e s w hen te c h n ic a l issues a re in v o lv e d . F irst, tim e c o n
strain ts, as a resu lt o f w hich jo u rn a lis ts feel a resp o n sib ility b o th to re p o rt
new s as q u ick ly as possible, a n d to scoop th e c o m p e titio n , are m o re likely
to leads to e rro rs in th o se aspects o f stories th a t req u ire m o re tim e to
c o m p re h e n d fully. B ecause W ilson gave th e P en tag o n o n ly tw o days’ n o tice
before th e p u b lic a tio n o f his story, social scientists w orking for th e D efense
D e p a rtm e n t h ad to rush th e ir press release an d w ere u n ab le to ex p lain th e
statistical d a ta as carefully as they h ad p la n n e d ." T h ese tim e c o n s tra in ts
also give jo u rn a lis ts few er o p p o rtu n itie s to verify th e ir in fo rm a tio n a n d
check th e accu racy o f im p o rta n t details.
S econd, few re p o rte rs o f so c ial-sc ien c e d a ta have tra in in g in statistics
a n d o th e r m a th e m a tic a l a n d scientific su b je c ts.12 M an y n ew spapers, m ag a
zines, an d T V sta tio n s have d ed icated science o r m ed ical re p o rte rs w ith
tra in in g in rele v an t topics, b u t th e sam e is n o t tru e for social science.
B ecause so m u c h o f th e new s involves vario u s o f th e social sciences to
g rea ter o r lesser degrees, these stories are covered by g en eral b ea t rep o rters
w ith o u t ex p ertise in any p a rtic u la r area. M o re te ch n ic al social science
topics, like testing, are often sh o rt-c h a n g e d by such an a rra n g e m e n t.
T h ird , as C aro l W eiss an d E velyn S inger have disco v ered in th e ir recen t
e x a m in a tio n o f social science rep o rtin g , m o st jo u rn a lis ts covering social
science issues are m o re c o n c e rn e d w ith rea d ab ility a n d im p a c t th a n th o r
o u ghness o f coverage. In fact, jo u rn a lis ts are o ften fru stra ted by th e d ry
style a n d highly qualified c o m m e n ts m a d e by m o st social scien tists in th e ir
w ritin g s a n d e n c o u n te rs w ith th e press. O n e jo u r n a lis t to ld W ess a n d
S inger th a t
[social scientists] are terrible writers, very boring. They don’t use flesh and
blood, they use graphs and bar charts. They should ham it up. . . . Make it
into drama. They have no talent for telling stories.13
Social scientists d o n o t “ tell stories” precisely becau se sto ry telling req u ires
th a t a d ra m a tic stru c tu re be im p o sed o n a series o f facts th a t m ay n o t
w a rra n t it. “ Y oung black m en an d w om en d id less th a n h a lf as well as
w hites in m a th a n d verbal tests given by th e U .S. g o v e rn m e n t . . is an
a tte n tio n -g ra b b in g in tro d u c tio n , th e k in d o f th in g an e d ito r m ig h t w an t to
p u t o n th e fro n t page o f th e S unday paper. T oo m u c h clarificatio n d etra cts
fro m d ra m a tic appeal.
4. Jo u rn a lists are in th e business o f g ath erin g in fo rm a tio n a b o u t c e rta in
issues an d events for th e p u rp o se o f re p o rtin g to an au d ien c e. T h is in fo r
m a tio n is g ath ered an d p resen ted p rin cip ally in th e fo rm o f s ta te m e n ts
181
m ad e by in d iv id u als (sources). T h e selection o f sources is th erefo re o f
p rim a ry im p o rta n c e in th e q u ality an d c o n te n t o f an y given new s story.
M an y observers o f th e new s m ed ia have noted th a t th e selection o f sources
for contro v ersial issues, p articu la rly tho se involving scientific d ata, often
involves co n sid eratio n s o th e r th a n th e so u rc e ’s rep resen tativ en ess o f th e
g ro u p ho ld in g th a t p o sitio n , o r o f th e in d iv id u a l’s specific e x p e rtise .14 E d
w ard Jay E pstein discusses th is ten d en c y in television netw ork news:
[Spokesm en are selected to represent sides in controversy at least partly
because they fit in with the organizational needs of the program. It is assumed
that spokesmen must be articulate, easily identifiable and dramatic in order
to hold the interest of viewers to whom the subject of the controversy may be
of no interest. Since the “average" person in a group cannot be depended on
to manifest these qualities—as Reuven Frank [then producer of the NBC
Nightly yVcvvs] pointed out. “most people are dull as far as their television
image is concerned"—producers are expected to select spokesmen who are
capable of retaining the audience’s interest, even if they are not what social
scientists would consider to be representative.15
T h e fre q u en t use, in bo th p rin t a n d bro ad cast, o f th e o u tsp o k e n L eon
K am in as a rep rese n tativ e o f th e e n v iro n m e n ta list p o sitio n , d esp ite his
ex tre m e stance in th e h eritab ility d ebate, is an exam p le o f th is tendency.
In a d d itio n to o rg an iz atio n al co n stra in ts, th e choice o f so u rces for new s
sto ries is influenced by jo u rn a lists' values, often a t th e expense o f accu rate
rep rese n tatio n . In 1979 an d 1980, R o b e rt L ic h ter et al. in terv iew ed 238
jo u rn a lis ts at m a jo r new spapers a n d n atio n al new sm agazines. As p a rt o f
each interview , re sp o n d e n ts w ere asked to list th e m a jo r so u rces to w hich
th ey w ould tu r n for in fo rm a tio n on four different topics: w elfare refo rm ,
c o n s u m e r p ro tec tio n , en v iro n m e n ta l issues, an d n u clea r energy. In each
case, th e m ost fre q u en tly m e n tio n e d sources (an d th e o nly o n es m e n tio n e d
by a m a jo rity o f jo u rn a lists) are tho se associated w ith w h at m ay be called
th e liberal side o f each o f these issues, e.g., th e U rb a n L eague an d PUSEI in
th e case o f w elfare refo rm , R a lp h N ad e r o n c o n su m e r p ro te c tio n , th e
S ierra C lu b a n d B arry C o m m o n e r fo r e n v iro n m e n ta l issues, a n d th e
U n io n o f C o n c ern ed S cientists a n d P rogressive m ag azin e for in fo rm a tio n
o n n u clea r energy.16 S u b seq u e n t c o n te n t analyses o f elite m e d ia coverage o f
th ese contro v ersial issues fo u n d th e m a jo r new spapers an d n ew sm agazines
giving "g rea te r w eight to th e a n ti- n u c le a r th a n th e p r o -n u c le a r sid e” o f th e
n u c le a r energy issue, “g rea ter credence to th e ad v o cates o f bu sin g th a n [to]
its o p p o n e n ts,” an d “ m o re sy m path[y] to th e critics o f th e oil in d u stry th a n
[to] its su p p o rters. In every in stan c e th e coverage follow ed n e ith e r th e
m id d le p ath n o r th e ex p e rt evidence.” 17
In an article in th e S ep tem b er 12. 1982, B oston G lobe, F ra n k G reve
182
The IQ Controversy
discusses th e controversy caused by th e genetic h y p o th esis briefly m e n
tio n e d in the P rofile study. T h ere is little d o u b t w here G rev e sta n d s o n th e
issue o f th e possible genetic basis o f g ro u p differences in test scores. Several
p arag rap h s are d ev o ted to th e c o n te n tio n o f D arrell Bock a n d Elsie M oore,
th e Profile a u th o rs, th a t th e ir sta te m e n t w as m isco n stru e d , an d th e p rese n
ta tio n o f evidence in s u p p o rt o f th e ir co n v ictio n th a t th e g ro u p differences
are en tirely en v iro n m e n ta l in origin. T h ere is also a len g th y d iscu ssio n o f
claim s by g ro u p s rep resen tin g blacks a n d H ispan ics th a t th e Profile stu d y
an d th e tests used w ere biased.
T he sto ry d oes n o t c o n ta in a w ord in defense o f th e tests, n o r is any
evidence p resen ted in favor o f th e genetic hypothesis. In stead , th e n am es o f
Shockley a n d H e rrn s te in are invoked. Follow ing a sta te m e n t th a t th e Pro
file stu d y “ has been seized u p o n by c e rta in b eh av io ral geneticists w ho
a rg u e th a t th e re a re in h e rite d in te lle c tu a l d iffe re n c e s b etw e en ra c ia l
g ro u p s,” S hockley’s ab o rtiv e C a lifo rn ia S enate ca m p a ig n is m e n tio n e d ,
alo n g w ith his “ assertio n o f in h e re n t racial differences.” A la ter p arag rap h
tells us th a t in th e 1920s “ som e scientists in ferred th e alleged ‘in fe rio rity ’ o f
R ussians, Jew s a n d o th e r im m ig ra n t g ro u p s from low er scores on ap titu d e
tests.” Finally, H e rrn ste in is described as a H arv ard psychology professor
w ho “ believes th e m a jo rity o f in tellectu al v aria tio n is in h e rite d ,” follow ed
by a q u o te in w hich he discusses th e su b stan tia l overlap betw een b lack a n d
w hite test scores. T h e clea r im p lic a tio n is th a t H e rrn s te in is o n e o f th o se
“ behavioral geneticists w ho argue th a t th e re are in h e rited in te lle ctu al d if
ferences betw een racial groups.” B ut H e rrn s te in has n ever m ad e such a
claim , speaking only o f h eritab ility w ith in g ro u p s a n d across social classes.
In G re v e’s choice o f sources, H e rrn s te in ’s H arv ard affiliation a n d “ n a m e ”
sta tu s in th e IQ contro v ersy a p p a re n tly outw eig h ed his irrelev an ce to th e
to p ic a t hand.
T h e P ro file ca se is n o t u n iq u e . In O c to b e r 1986, P rim e M in is te r
N ak a so n e o f Ja p a n m ad e a sta te m e n t im plying th a t A m eric an b lack s an d
H isp an ics are o f low er average intellige th a n w hites o r Jap an ese. H is re
m a rk s w ere picked u p an d p ro m in e n tly displayed by th e n a tio n a l m ed ia.
T h e tre a tm e n t o f th e issue in the O cto b e r 6 T im e m ag azin e is rep rese n
tative. R eview ing th e IQ controversy, T im e id en tified W illiam Shockley as
typical o f th a t very sm all g ro u p o f scientists w ho believe th a t b la c k -w h ite
IQ differences are genetic in origin. T h e sto ry ’s au th o rs, after n o tin g th a t IQ
tests have been used in th e past to s u p p o rt racial stereotypes, p o in t o u t th a t
th e vast m ajo rity o f ex p e rts in th e U .S. a n d elsew here believe th a t d if
ferences in intelligence are e n v iro n m e n ta lly d e te rm in e d , an d th a t m o st
sta n d ard iz ed tests used to m easu re intelligence have a p ro n o u n c e d w hite,
m id d le -c la ss bias. L eon K a m in a n d S tep h en Jay G o u ld are p rese n ted as
typical exam ples o f th e m a in stre a m ex p e rt view on th e subject.
183
Press coverage o f th e Profile o f A m eric a n Youth stu d y a n d o f N a k a so n e s
rem a rk s are tw o exam ples o f th e im p o rta n t role played by th e new s m ed ia
in p u b lic discussion o f social science issues an d th e ways in w hich jo u r
nalistic co n stra in ts an d values m ay in terfere w ith objectiv e a n d accu rate
rep o rtin g . T h e IQ contro v ersy is full o f such cases. W hile th e new s m ed ia
did n o t create th e issues o f th e n a tu re o f intelligence. IQ heritability, an d
racial differences in test scores, they have, by th e n a tu re o f th e ir coverage,
c o n trib u te d significantly to th e p ro p ag a tio n o f th e p u b lic co n tro v ersy su r
ro u n d in g these issues.
T h is c h a p te r a n d th e next describe the results o f a c o n te n t analysis o f
new s m ed ia coverage o f th e IQ controversy. T h e p u rp o se o f th is c o n te n t
analysis is to describe th e way in w hich th e elite p rin t a n d television m ed ia
have ch a racterize d v arious te stin g -re la te d issues. Specifically, we are in te r
ested in categorizing w hich p osition(s) on th e v ario u s co n tro v ersial issues
are rep resen ted by press ac c o u n ts an d th e m a n n e r in w hich th ese p o sitio n s
are ch aracterized , paying p a rtic u la r a tte n tio n to th e new s m edia's p o rtray al
o f ex p e rt o p in io n a b o u t testing. C o m p ariso n o f these d a ta w ith th e results
o f th e ex p e rt survey re p o rte d in C h a p te rs 2 th ro u g h 5 will serve as on e
m easu re o f new s m e d ia accu racy in coverage o f testin g issues. M ore g en er
ally, th is c o n te n t analysis sho u ld allow us to b e tte r u n d e rsta n d th e m e c h a
nism s by w hich th e new s m ed ia have c o n trib u te d to th e IQ controversy.
Content A nalysis M ethodology
T h e follow ing is a basic o u tlin e o f th e c o n te n t analysis m ethodology. A
d etailed d escrip tio n can be fo u n d in A ppendix C.
S a m p le
T h e sam p le for th e c o n te n t analysis in clu d es th e sm all n u m b e r o f n a
tio n a l o r n e a r-n a tio n a l new s sources believed to have th e m ost influence
o n p u b lic o p in io n an d p ublic policy. T hese are th e th ree m a jo r n atio n al
new sw eeklies (T im e , N e w sw eek, U.S. N ew s a n d W orld R e p o rt), th e th ree
co m m ercial television netw orks (ABC, CBS, NBC), an d th ree m a jo r new s
p ap ers (the N ew York T im e s , th e W ashington Post, an d th e W all S treet
Journal). T he television netw orks are in c lu d ed because o f th e ir o v erw h elm
ing p o p u la rity as sources o f n atio n al new s. T h e ch oice o f p rin t m ed ia
sou rces is based o n a 1974 survey by C arol W eiss o f A m eric an leaders in
politics, business, ac ad e m ia , the new s m edia, a n d v ario u s civic, religious,
a n d p ublic in terest o rg a n iz a tio n s.18 T he six p rin t m ed ia sou rces analyzed
here are th e m o st w idely read a m o n g these decision m akers.
T h e tim e fram e for th e c o n te n t analysis is th e IQ co n tro v ersy in its
184
The IQ Controversy
recen t m an ifesta tio n . T h e m o d e rn controversy, p a rtic u la rly th e p u b lic d e
bate, m ay be defined as begin n in g w ith th e p u b lic a tio n o f A rth u r J e n s e n ’s
“ H ow M uch C an We Boost IQ a n d S cholastic A ch ie v em en t?” in th e H a r
vard E d u ca tio n a l R eview (H E R ), in early 1969. T h e p u b lic d eb a te c o n
tin u e s to the p rese n t day. T h e c o n te n t analysis th e re fo re in clu d es articles
p u b lish ed a n d television new s p ro g ra m s b ro ad c ast d u rin g th e 15 years
betw en Ja n u a ry 1, 1969, (T h e W ashington Post I n d e x began p u b lic a tio n in
1972; o u r analysis o f the Post th erefo re d oes n o t begin u n til th a t year.) an d
D ec em b e r 31, 1983, th e last co m p lete year for w hich new s in d ices w ere
available at th e tim e th is analysis was begun.
W ith in each source, th e analysis in c lu d es a ll articles a n d b ro ad c ast seg
m e n ts unco v ered by a search o f the a p p ro p ria te in d ices (in d iv id u al in d ices
for each new spaper, th e R e a d e r ’s G u id e to P eriodical L ite ra tu re for new s
m agazines, a n d v arious archival sources for th e telev isio n b ro ad casts) using
th e search te rm s “ In te llig e n c e ,” “ In tellig en c e te s tin g ,” “ IQ ,” “A p titu d e
te stin g ,” “A dm issions te stin g ,” “ SAT,” a n d “ E m p lo y m en t te stin g ,” as well
as o th e r categories such as “S ch o o ls,” “ M e n tal te sts,” “ E d u c a tio n a l te sts,”
an d “A bility te sts,” to w hich th e original search ite m s m ay have led.
T h e to ta l n u m b e r o f articles a n d b ro ad c ast seg m en ts an aly zed fro m each
so u rce is listed in Table 6.1. It is fo rtu n a te th a t new s m ed ia coverage o f th e
IQ controversy, w hile extensive, has n o t been so pervasive th a t th e re are
m o re articles a n d b ro ad c asts th a n can reaso n ab ly be co d ed . By co d in g a ll
relev an t new s stories from each source, sa m p lin g p ro b lem s w ere e lim i
n ated . W hile th e search for new s stories u n d o u b te d ly m issed som e relev an t
ite m s (th is is m o re tru e for television th a n for p rin t m edia), th e o v erw h elm
ing m a jo rity o f such stories from th e elite new s m ed ia have been coded. We
are co n fid en t, therefo re, th a t th e in clu sio n o f an y relev an t b u t u n co d e d
item s from these sources w ould n o t significantly a lte r th e results.
C o d in g
T h e tw o fu n d a m e n ta l co n c ern s in develo p in g an y c o n te n t analysis (CA)
are reliability an d validity. R eliability is th e sine q u a n o n o f c o n te n t an a ly
sis; th e p u rp o se o f c o n te n t analysis is to objectively describ e th e c o n te n ts o f
th e item s being coded, in d e p e n d e n t o f th e idiosy n crasies a n d biases o f th e
in d iv id u al observer. Ideally, a satisfactory codin g sch em e sh o u ld resu lt in
identical code from all p ro p erly tra in e d coders ex a m in in g th e sam e article
o r bro ad cast. R eliable code is o f no use, however, if it is n o t relev an t to th e
purp o ses o f th e research (i.e., if it is n o t valid). U n fo rtu n a tely , reliability
an d validity usually w ork at cross purposes; as CA co d in g ca p tu res m o re
relev an t in fo rm a tio n , it b ecom es less reliable. To ta k e tw o ex trem es, if
co d ers in th e p rese n t analysis h ad been asked sim ply to reco rd th e n u m b e r
185
TABLE 6.1
Articles and Broadcasts Coded from Various News Sources
Print Media (N = 479)
New York Times: 267
Wall Street Journal: 22
Washington Post (1972-83 only): 123
Newsweek: 32
Time: 22
U.S. News and World Report: 13
Television (N = 65)
ABC:
Daily news broadcasts: 7
News magazine segments: 1
News specials: 0
CBS:
News magazines segments: 5
News specials: 1
NBC:
News magazine segments: 1
News specials: 0
o f tim es th e w ords "in tellig en c e” o r “ intelligence tests” are listed in an
article, code w ould be very reliable, b u t practically w orthless. O n th e o th e r
h a n d , coders’ general im pressio n s a b o u t how each o f th e co n tro v ersial
issues is being ch a racterize d rep resen t th e ce n tral p u rp o se o f th is research,
b u t w ould be highly subjective an d useless for a scientific analysis. A b al
an ce m u st be stru ck betw een these tw o im p o rta n t b u t co m p etin g goals.
H ow m u c h reliability one m u st a n d sho u ld give up in o rd er to p ro d u ce
valid code d ep e n d s bo th on th e n a tu re o f the coding p ro b lem an d on th e
rese a rc h e rs o p in io n o f th e relative im p o rta n c e o f reliab ility an d validity.
C o n te n t analyses are always op en to second-guessin g . In th e p rese n t case,
we a tte m p te d to m a x im iz e b o th goals th ro u g h extensive co d e r tra in in g an d
ed itin g o f th e CA code sheets an d by c o n s u lta tio n w ith c o n te n t analysis
experts.
T h e coding schem e for the p resen t analysis is hierarch ical. In read in g
th ro u g h p r in t a rtic le s a n d e x a m in in g te lev isio n b ro a d c a sts, it was d is
covered th a t th e relevant in fo rm a tio n c o n ta in e d in these so u rces co uld be
classified in to th irte e n categories, c o rresp o n d in g to g eneral issues o f c o n
cern w ith in th e IQ controversy. T h e code sheets w ere th erefo re set u p so
186
The IQ Controversy
th a t coders first decided w hich o f th e categories (Issues) w as p resen t, a n d
th e n m oved to in d iv id u a l co d e sheets c o n ta in in g m o re specific ite m s
w ithin each Issue.
T h e G en e ra l C o d e S heet, w hich c o n ta in s the list o f possible Issues c o n
sidered, is divided in to th ree sections. T h e first asks for basic in fo rm a tio n
a b o u t th e article o r b ro ad c ast such as source, d ate, length, lo catio n , an d
type. T h e second section is th e list o f Issues con sid ered . A given a rtic le or
b ro ad c ast m ight co n sid er an y o n e o r m o re o f th ese Issues. T h e th irte e n
Issues are (see A p p en d ix C for a m o re d etailed d escrip tio n ):
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
V III.
IX .
X.
X I.
X II.
X III.
T h e N a tu re o f Intelligence.
W h at Intelligence Tests M easure.
T h e U sefulness o f IQ.
Test M isuse.
T h e H erita b ility o f IQ.
G ro u p D ifferences in IQ.
O th e r Issues C o n c e rn in g H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , o r Shockley.
T h e M ean in g o f SAT Scores.
SAT U se an d M isuse.
SAT C oaching.
G ro u p D ifferences in SAT Score.
E m p lo y m en t Testing.
Intelligence an d A p titu d e T esting O u tsid e th e U .S.
T h is list o f Issues is itself an analysis o f new s m e d ia coverage o f testin g
issues, as it is based on an ex a m in a tio n o f all relev an t p rin t an d television
stories. W hile th e re is co n sid erab le overlap betw een th e issues co n sid ered
in o u r ex p e rt survey a n d in new s m edia coverage, th e tw o are n o t id en tical.
T h e q u e stio n n a ire was d eveloped based u p o n a review o f th e so c ia l-sc ie n
tific literatu re as well as th e m o re p u b lic aspects o f th e IQ controversy. T h e
Issues listed above are derived en tirely from elite new s m ed ia coverage
fro m 1969 to 1983. In general, th e m edia are n o t as c o n c e rn e d as th e social
scientists w ith highly te ch n ic al issues like th e ev id en ce fo r h eritab ility o r
th e reality o f “g,” an d are m u c h m ore c o n c e rn e d , p a rtic u la rly in rec en t
years, w ith SAT issues. T h e differing em p h ases o f th e social science an d
new s m ed ia versions o f th e IQ contro v ersy are rele v an t to th e q u e s tio n o f
how th e new s m e d ia are ch aracterizin g e x p e rt o p in io n . T h e focus o f th e
new s m ed ia is generally less te ch n ic al a n d m o re p ractical th a n th a t o f
testin g ex p e rts (th ere is also an obsession w ith H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , an d
Shockley), p lacing lim its o n th e ac cu racy w ith w hich ex p e rt c o n c e rn s can
be tra n sm itte d th ro u g h th e m edia.
T h e th ird section o f th e G en eral C o d e S heet asks co d ers to m a k e tw o
sim ple subjective ju d g m e n ts as to th e general to n e o f th e artic le o r b ro a d
187
cast regarding testin g a n d th e h eritab ility o f intelligence. T esting to n e co u ld
be “ p ro -te s tin g .” “a n ti- te s tin g ” o r " n e u tra l," a n d h eritab ility to n e co u ld
be “ le a rn e d .” “ in n a te ,” o r “ n eu tra l.” As these tw o ju d g m e n ts are th e least
objective p a rt o f th e coding schem e, coders are in stru c ted to assu m e th a t
all articles an d b ro ad c asts are n eu tra l, unless the evid en ce to th e c o n tra ry is
overw helm ing.
Follow ing c o m p le tio n o f the G en eral C o d e Sheet, co d ers m ove to In d i
vidual Issue C o d e S heets c o rresp o n d in g to each o f th e Issues co n sid ered by
th e article o r b ro ad c ast being coded. T h e In d iv id u a l Issue C ode Sheets
co n sist o f series o f positio n sta te m e n ts related to th e Issue a t h an d . For
ex am ple, th e “ Test M isuse” C ode Sheet c o n ta in s six sta te m en ts, including:
1. S tu d en ts are often m isclassified, m islabeled, o r stig m atized o n th e basis
o f intelligence test scores.
4. T h e use o f tests creates a n arro w set o f ed u c atio n al objectives.
6. Test scores are overrelied u p o n (are to o im p o rta n t in p eo p le’s lives).
For each sta te m en t, th e co d e r m u st m ak e an initial ju d g m e n t o f w h eth e r
th e p o sitio n is in an y way rep resen ted in th e article o r b ro ad cast being
co d ed. If it is not, th e sta te m e n t is coded as N o t M e n tio n e d (N M ). If the
p o sitio n is rep rese n ted , it m ight be su p p o rte d , rejected, o r b o th . T h ese
po ssibilities are coded as Positive (Pos), N egative (Neg), o r b o th .
For so m e o f th e sta te m e n ts on som e o f th e In d iv id u al Issue C ode Sheets,
th e re are m o re o p tio n s th a n sim ply Pos o r Neg. Item 1 o n th e “ H eritab ility
o f In tellig en ce” Sheet reads:
1. T h e h eritab le c o m p o n e n t o f (genetic in fluence on) intelligence, as m e a
sured by intelligence tests is:
(N M ).
to ta l (no m e n tio n o f en v iro n m e n ta l d e te rm in a tio n , o r en v iro n m e n ta l
d e te rm in a tio n ruled out).
significant (in clu d in g en v iro n m e n ta l d e te rm in a tio n ).
insignificant o r n o n ex isten t.
c a n n o t be d e te rm in e d o r is u n d e te rm in e d .
An artic le o r b ro ad c ast th a t addresses th e q u estio n o f h eritab ility m ay
receive an y o n e o r any c o m b in a tio n o f th e fo u r n o n - N M codes.
Finally, for each rep rese n tatio n o f a given positio n (Pos, Neg, o r som e
o th e r option), coders are req u ired to d e te rm in e w hat sou rces th e jo u rn a list
used. Was the p o sitio n sim ply asserted o r im plied by th e jo u rn a list, w as it
a ttrib u te d to o n e o r m o re ex p e rt o r n o n e x p e rt others, o r w as th e p o sitio n
ch a racterize d as being w idely held by th e ex p e rt p o p u la tio n ? (See A p p en
dix C for a d etailed d escrip tio n o f the source codes.)
188
The IQ Controversy
General Code S heet Data
N u m b e r o f A rticles or B roadcast S e g m e n ts
N ew spapers. Table 6.1 p resen ts th e n u m b e r o f rele v an t articles o r b ro a d
c a s t s e g m e n ts c o d e d fro m e a c h n ew s s o u rc e . T h e th r e e n e w s p a p e rs
c o n trib u te th e lio n ’s share o f such stories. T h e N e w York T im e s (N Y T ) a n d
W ashington Post ( W P ) a c c o u n t for 72 p erc en t o f all sto ries coded. N o
d o u b t th is is p rim a rily a fu n c tio n o f th e m u ch g rea ter n u m b e r o f sto ries o f
all types ca rrie d in these daily new spapers, c o m p a re d to w eekly new s
m a g az in es a n d telev isio n new s p ro g ra m s. (T h e sm all n u m b e r o f W all
Street Jo u rn a l [ W S J ] article s reflects its specialized new s statu s.) B etw een
th e T im e s a n d Post, how ever, th e T im e s has p u b lis h e d a m u c h larg er
n u m b e r o f stories rele v an t to intelligence testin g (even co rrec tin g for th e
th ree m issing years o f Post articles). N early h a lf o f all co d e in th e p resen t
analysis is o f article s from th e N e w York T im es.
F igure 6.1 p resen ts th e n u m b e r o f article s o r b ro a d c a st segm ents co d ed
from each new s source for each o f th e fifteen years o f th e p rese n t analysis.
W S J d a ta are n o t show n b ecause th e re are to o few article s for m ean in g fu l
tre n d s to appear. T h e N Y T show s a peak in 1969, reflecting th e im m e d ia te
b acklash from th e p u b lic a tio n o f Je n se n ’s H E R article, follow ed by a th r e e -
FIGURE 6.1.
Number of relevant articles or broadcasts by year for each news source
YEAR
189
year lull, an d so m ew h at renew ed in terest in th e m id 1970s. T his second
wave is largely created by coverage o f W illiam S hockley an d his a tte m p ts to
d eb a te a n d to p ro cu re fu n d in g for research on racial differences in in te l
ligence. It was also d u rin g th is perio d th a t L eon K am in an d o th e r critics
b ecam e m ost vocal. M ost o f th e coverage in th e late 1970s a n d early 1980s
is c o n c e rn e d w ith SAT issues. T h e peak in 1977 is a resu lt o f th e th irte e n
relev an t articles p u b lish ed in th e N Y T “ S pring Survey o f E d u c a tio n ” on
M ay 1 o f th a t year. W ith the ex cep tio n o f 1977, th e tre n d s in th e W P g raph
ap p ro x im ate ly parallel tho se o f th e N Y T for th e years o f W P coverage
analy zed.
N e w sm a g a zin es. Because th e th ree new sm agazines c o n trib u te a to ta l o f
o nly six ty -sev en stories to th e analysis, we e x a m in e d th e possibility o f
c o m b in in g these sources for fu rth e r analyses. It w as discovered th a t IQ
relev an t stories from N ew sw ee k, T im e, an d U.S. N ew s a n d W orld R ep o rt
d o n o t d iffe r s ig n ific a n tly in a v e ra g e le n g th , lo c a tio n , te s tin g a n d
h eritab ility to n e, o r in th e ir re p re se n ta tio n o f te n key item s (i.e., th o se
c o n c e rn in g critical to p ics in th e contro v ersy such as heritability, th e genetic
basis o f g ro u p differences, a n d th e overuse o f tests) selected from th e In d i
v id u al Issue C ode Sheets. M oreover, th e r a n k - o rd e r c o rre la tio n s betw een
th e new sm agazines for Issues co n sid ered are all g reater th a n 0.60. We
th e re fo re c o n c lu d e d th a t th e th ree new sm agazines d o n o t differ in any
im p o rta n t way for th e p u rp o ses o f th is analysis, an d co u ld be co m b in ed in
fu rth e r discussion. F igure 6.1 reveals no su b stan tia l tim e tre n d in q u a n tity
o f coverage o f IQ -re la te d topics by new sm agazines, w ith th e ex cep tio n o f a
slight increase in v ariability o f coverage in later years. T h is la ter coverage is
p rim a rily SAT related.
Television netw orks. As w ith th e new sm agazines, th e sm all n u m b e r o f
b ro ad c ast segm ents (sixty-five) p ro m p te d an analysis o f th e differences
betw een th e th ree netw orks. N o significant differences w ere fo u n d in aver
age b ro ad cast length a n d in th e rep rese n tatio n o f th ree o f th e ten key item s,
a n d r a n k - o rd e r c o rre la tio n s betw een th e netw orks for Issues co n sid ered
average above 0.60. (Insufficient sam ple sizes from A BC an d N B C p re
clu d ed statistical c o m p ariso n s o f b ro ad cast type, to n e, a n d seven o f th e key
item s.) T h e th ree netw orks w ere th erefo re c o m b in e d for th e p u rp o se o f
f u rth e r analyses. D a ta fro m th is c o n c a n te n a tio n p rim a rily reflect CBS
new s coverage, as th is netw o rk c o n trib u te s 68 p erc en t o f all cod ed seg
m en ts. It is u n clea r precisely how m u c h o f th is d iscrep an cy betw een th e
n etw orks reflects g rea ter coverage o f IQ -re le v a n t issues by CBS a n d how
m u c h is a fu n ctio n o f th e su p e rio r indexing available for CBS new s b ro a d
casts (see A p p en d ix C). T h a t th is d isp ro p o rtio n a lity is reflected in th e index
o f all netw ork evening new s b ro ad c asts is an in d ic atio n th a t CBS p ro b ab ly
h as had su b stan tia lly m o re coverage o f these issues.
190
The IQ Controversy
FIGURE 6.2.
Number of articles or broadcasts considering each Issue, for each news source
I
II
III IV
V
VI VII
VIII IX
X
XI
XII XIII
ISSUE CONSIDERED
NUMBER
OF
ARTICLES
6.2a. New York Times
20 .
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII IX
ISSUE CONSIDERED
6.2b. Washington Post
X
XI
XII XIII
NUMBER
OF
ARTICLES
NUMBER
OF ARTICLES
ISSUE CONSIDERED
NUMBER
OF
BROADCAST
SEG M E N T S
6.2d. Newsmagazines
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
ISSUE
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
CONSIDERED
6.2e. Television Networks
_______________
191
192
The IQ Controversy
T elevision coverage o f th e IQ contro v ersy has been o f a so m ew h at d if
ferent c h a ra c te r th a n coverage by th e p rin t m ed ia. F igure 6.1 is o n e in d ic a
tio n o f these differences. W hile the p rin t m ed ia covered th e co n tro v ersy
m o re o r less steadily th ro u g h o u t th e p eriod o f th e analysis, th e television
n etw orks p ro v id ed v irtu a lly n o coverage at all u n til 1973, w ith m o st stories
a p p e a rin g in th e late 1970s a n d 1980s. A s th e e x a m in a tio n o f Issu e
coverage reveals, television has been a lm o st exclusively c o n c e rn e d w ith th e
m o re p rag m a tic S A T -related Issues, a n d has d ea lt very little w ith th e m o re
th e o re tic al a n d tech n ical p ro b lem s o f th e n a tu re o f in tellig en ce o r th e
h eritab ility o f IQ. T h ere is also an alm o st to ta l neglect o f th e earlier, m o re
e m o tio n a l aspects o f th e contro v ersy (Jen sen , Shockley, K am in et al.). T h e
IQ M y th a n d a su b se q u en t segm ent o f 6 0 M in u te s d ealin g w ith th e B u rt
scan d al c o n s titu te th e bu lk o f television coverage o f th ese issues.
L ocation, Length, a n d Type
See A p p en d ix D.
Issu es C onsidered
N ew spapers. F igure 6.2 show s, for each new s source, th e n u m b e r o f
article s o r b ro ad c ast segm ents co n sid erin g each o f th e th irte e n Issues. Be
cause m o st articles an d b ro ad c asts co n sid er m o re th a n o n e Issue, th e to ta l
n u m b e rs w ith in each new s source are m u ch g rea ter th a n th e to tal n u m b e r
o f articles o r b ro ad c ast segm ents. T h e d istrib u tio n o f Issues co n sid ered
a p p e ars to be su b stan tia lly different betw een th e N Y T a n d th e W P, p ar
tic u la rly regarding Issues V, VI, an d VII. b u t th is d iscrep an cy can be ac
c o u n te d for by th e absence o f th e years 1969 th ro u g h 1971 from th e W P
analysis. N Y T a n d o th e r p rin t m ed ia coverage o f testin g issues d u rin g th ese
years was heavily involved w ith th e h eritab ility a n d g ro u p difference q u e s
tio n s. A c o m p ariso n o f th e d istrib u tio n o f Issues co n sid ered by th e W P an d
N Y T in c lu d in g only the years 1972 th ro u g h 1983 reveals a r a n k - o rd e r
c o rre la tio n o f 0.58. It is th erefo re highly p ro b ab le th a t th e W P a n d N Y T
d istrib u tio n s in F igure 6.1 w ould look very sim ila r if th e W P d a ta in clu d ed
articles from the m issing years.
T h e Issues co n sid ered m o st fre q u en tly by th e N Y T (an d by im p lica tio n
th e WP) are th o se spark ed by Je n se n ’s H E R article: “T h e H erita b ility o f
Intelligence,” “G ro u p D ifferences in IQ ,” an d “O th e r Issues C o n c e rn in g
H e rrn ste in , Je n sen , an d Shockley.” A b o u t h a lf o f all n ew sp ap er articles
(53.9% o f N Y T , 32.5% o f W P analyzed, 54.5% o f W S J) deal w ith at least
o n e o f these th ree Issues. Issue VI on G ro u p D ifferences is th e single m ost
c o m m o n Issue co n sid ered by b o th th e N Y T a n d W SJ. T h e second m ost
193
c o m m o n Issue co n sid ered (first am o n g th e analy zed W P articles) is V III on
th e M eaning o f SAT Scores. As a group, th e S A T -related Issues (“ T h e
M ean in g o f SAT S cores,” “ SAT U se an d M isuse,” “ SAT C o a ch in g ,” an d
" G ro u p D ifferences in SAT” ) are co n sid ered by a p p ro x im ate ly 40% o f all
n ew spaper articles (36.3% o f N Y T , 61% o f W P, 36.4% o f W SJ). A n o th e r
freq u en tly co n sid ered Issue is “ W h at Intelligence Tests M e asu re,” w hich,
to g e th er w ith “ T h e N a tu re o f Intellig en ce” c o rre sp o n d s to th e to p ics d is
cussed in C h a p te r 2. O ne o f these Issues is co n sid ered in m o re th a n 20% o f
all new spaper article s (19.9% o f N Y T , 23.6% o f W P. 18.2% o f W SJ). Issues
III (“ T h e U sefulness o f IQ ” ) a n d IV (“ Test M isuse” ) fo rm th e h e a rt o f
C h a p te r 5, an d are co n sid ered by a b o u t 20% o f n ew sp ap er articles (18.7%
o f N Y T . 21.1% o f W P. 13.6% o f W SJ). “ E m p lo y m en t T esting.” also d is
cussed in C h a p te r 5, has n o t been th e subject o f m u c h n ew sp ap er coverage,
th o u g h , n o t surprisingly, it is co n sid ered in 23% o f all rele v an t W S J a r ti
cles. Because Issue X III. “ Intelligence a n d A p titu d e T esting O u tsid e th e
U .S .,” is so in fre q u en tly o f c o n c e rn in new s m ed ia coverage, it will be
d ro p p ed from fu rth e r analyses o f Issues consid ered . T h e c o n te n ts o f the
eight relev an t articles (six o f w hich co n c ern Ja p an ) will be briefly discussed
in C h a p te r 7.
F igure 6.3 p resen ts th e tim e tre n d s from each new s so u rce for each o f
fo u r Issue groups: I a n d II on “ T h e N a tu re o f Intellig en ce,” III an d IV on
“ Intelligence Test U se an d M isu se,” V, VI, an d VII on “ H erita b ility an d
G ro u p D ifferences in IQ ” , a n d VII th ro u g h XI o n th e “ SAT.” T hese g ro u p
ings are b o th co n c ep tu ally an d em p irically based; in d iv id u al tim e -tre n d
g rap h s for each Issue w ith in a g ro u p d o n o t look su b stan tia lly different.
O n ce again, th e H'S'J is n o t in clu d ed because th e re are to o few articles for
m eaningful tre n d s to appear.
In th e W P. “ T h e N a tu re o f Intelligence” an d “Test U se an d M isu se”
have been a fairly c o n s ta n t source o f c o n c e rn th ro u g h o u t th e m o d e rn IQ
controversy. T h e sam e is tru e in th e N Y T , w ith th e ex cep tio n o f a n o tic e
able peak in 1977 as a result o f th e e d u c atio n su p p le m e n t.
M ore in te restin g tre n d s are a p p a re n t in coverage o f “ H erita b ility an d
G ro u p D ifferences in IQ ,” an d th e “ SAT,” w here it b eco m es clear th a t the
relative absence o f tre n d s in F igure 6.1 is th e resu lt o f th e sim u lta n e o u s
w an in g o f o n e Issue G ro u p an d w axing o f th e other. L ike th e F igure 6.1
g rap h, th e N Y T show s a no ticeab le peak in “ H erita b ility a n d G ro u p D if
ferences” coverage in 1969 follow ing th e p u b lic a tio n o f Jen sen 's H E R a r ti
cle, follow ed by a th re e -y e a r lull, a n d renew ed in te rest as Shockley, K a m in
et al. b ecam e active. B eginning in th e m id 1970s th e re is a steady d eclin e in
articles o n these Issues, w ith th e ex ception o f a peak in 1977 (th e e d u c atio n
su p p le m e n t again). T he W P p resen ts a clean er p ic tu re on these Issues,
p eak in g in th e early to m id 1970s, an d d eclin in g thereafter.
194
The IQ Controversy
NUMBER
OF
ARTICLES
OR
BROADCAST
SEGMENTS
FIGURE 6.3.
Number of articles or broadcasts considering each Issue group by year,
for each news source
NUMBER
OF
ARTICLES
OR
BROADCAST
SEGMENTS
6.3a. Issues I or II: The Nature of Intelligence
6.3b. Issues III or IV: Intelligence Test Use and Misuse
NUMBER
OF
ART I C L E S
OR
B R OADCAST
SEGMENTS
6.3c. Issues V, VI, or VII: Ileritability and Group Differences in IQ
6.3d. Issues VIII, IX, X, or XI: The SAT
195
196
The IQ Controversy
T h e decline in coverage o f “ H erita b ility an d G ro u p D ifference” Issues is
p aralleled by a steady increase in coverage o f S A T -related topics. T h e early
1970s saw alm o st n o in te rest in th e SAT by an y o f th e new s m e d ia b u t
b eg in n in g in 1975, th e re is a d ra m a tic rise in SAT coverage, leveling off
a b o u t 1980 (tho u g h th ere is a slight decline in 1983). M u ch o f th e in c re as
ing in te rest in th e SAT is th e resu lt o f c o n c e rn over th e lo n g -te rm d eclin e
in average scores am o n g U .S. high school stu d e n ts, as well as th e effects o f
c o a c h in g o n SAT sc o re s (h ig h lig h te d by th e 1979 F T C re p o rt). T h is
coverage also reflects a shifting em p h asis am o n g th e critics o f testin g (the
N E A , th e N a d e r group), w ho instigated p u b lic d iscu ssio n o f th e issues o f
bias in th e SAT an d the in o rd in a te im p o rta n c e p laced on th e SAT in
d ecid in g th e fate o f A m erican high school stu d en ts. N o t show n in F igure
6.3, b u t related to th is change in focus am o n g th e critics o f testing, is a rise
in coverage o f e m p lo y m e n t testin g issues, w hich looks m u c h like th e SAT
g raph, b u t w ith a sm aller n u m b e r o f articles.
N e w sm a g a zin es. T h e d istrib u tio n o f Issues co n sid ered in new sm ag azin e
coverage o f th e IQ controversy, show n in F igure 6.2, is highly sim ila r to th a t
fo u n d in th e new spapers ( ra n k -o r d e r co rre la tio n w ith th e N Y T = 0.83),
th o u g h “T h e N a tu re o f Intellig en ce” an d “Test U se a n d M isu se” Issue
g ro u p s rep rese n t a higher p ro p o rtio n o f all n ew sm ag azin e articles th a n is
th e case w ith new spapers. T h e percen tag e o f new sm ag azin e articles co n sid
ering each o f th e Issue g roups is as follows: “ T h e N a tu re o f In tellig en ce,”
35.8% ; “Test U se a n d M isuse,” 31.3% ; “ H erita b ility an d G ro u p D ifferences
in IQ ,” 59.7% ; “ SAT,” 44.8% ; a n d “ E m p lo y m en t T esting,” 4.5%.
N ew sm a g az in es d o n o t e x h ib it th e sa m e sig n ific an t tim e tre n d s in
coverage o f Issues (F igure 6.3) th a t th e new spap ers do. W hile displaying a
rise in coverage o f S A T -related topics d u rin g th e late 1970s, th e new s
m agazines pro v id ed a m o re o r less c o n s ta n t level o f coverage o f o th e r IQ
issues. O f course, th e relatively sm all n u m b e r o f n ew sm ag azin e articles
p reclu d es an y highly p ro m in e n t trends.
Television netw orks. It is n o t surprising, in light o f th e d a ta in F igure 6.1
in d ic atin g te lev isio n ’s late e n try in to coverage o f IQ issues, th a t th e m o st
c o m m o n Issues co n sid ered in television new s stories have been S A T -re
lated. N early 57 p erc en t o f all relev an t television new s b ro ad c asts are c o n
c e r n e d w ith o n e o r a n o t h e r o f th e SAT Issu e s . T h e c o n tro v e rs ia l
“ H erita b ility a n d G ro u p D ifferences” Issues a c c o u n t for 40 p erc en t o f th e
b roadcasts. O th e r IQ an d testin g Issues have received m in im a l coverage on
television.
B ecause television was so little co n c e rn e d w ith te stin g issues before th e
m id 1970s, th e tim e - tr e n d g rap h s for th e televisio n n etw o rk s in F igure 6.3
are re stric te d in range. N o n eth e le ss, even th e n etw o rk s show a rise in
197
coverage o f S A T -related Issues over th e second h a lf o f th e an aly zed tim e
period.
T h e d istrib u tio n o f Issues in F igure 6.2 reflects b o th th e actu al o cc u r
rence o f new s events, an d decisions by tho se in th e new s m ed ia a b o u t th e
relative im p o rta n c e o f vario u s issues in th e IQ controversy. T h e differences
betw een new s sources in F igures 6.1 th ro u g h 6.3 are th e resu lt o f d if
ferences in these decisions. T h e sim ilarities are d e te rm in e d b o th by th e
o cc u rre n ce o f events an d th e sim ilarity o f decisio n s reach ed a b o u t th e
im p o rta n c e o f th o se events. T h ere is a circu larity in h e re n t in th ese d ec i
sions, however, as th e new s m edia, by th e n a tu re o f th e ir coverage, help
b o th to create even ts an d to m ak e th e m im p o rta n t. W ould J e n s e n ’s H E R
article have caused such a stir on college ca m p u se s an d elsew here h ad every
m a jo r p rin t new s source n o t ru n at least o n e sto ry o n Je n se n ’s thesis? O n
th e o th e r h an d , w ould the m ed ia have been so q u ick to pick u p on th e sto ry
h ad th e re n o t b een at least som e v io le n t reaction?
T h e d ecision to ru n a sto ry is d e te rm in e d b o th by w h at m e d ia p erso n n el
believe th e ir au d ien c e sh o u ld know an d w h at th ey believe th e au d ien c e is
in te reste d in. H e rb e rt G an s, o n th e basis o f his analysis o f n atio n al new s
m ag azine an d television netw o rk new s coverage, co n clu d es th a t th e new s
w o rth in ess o f a sto ry is in p a rt d e te rm in e d by c e rta in e n d u rin g values
sh ared by tho se m ak in g new s decisions. A m ong these are a b elief in in d i
v id u a lism (in d iv id u a l w o rth ) a n d racial in te g ra tio n . S to ries a b o u t IQ
h eritab ility an d racial differences in test scores beco m e new sw orthy w hen
o n e holds such values.
G a n s also discovered th a t jo u rn a lis ts base w h at th ey believe to be o f
in te rest to th e ir au d ien c e on w h at is o f in te rest to th e m se lv es.19 T h e SAT is
p erh a p s the p re d o m in a n t a p titu d e test in A m erica, o f in te rest to m illio n s
o f high school stu d e n ts a n d th e ir p aren ts, p articu la rly if th o se stu d e n ts are
ap p lying to selective colleges. M em b ers o f th e elite m ed ia have d isp ro p o r
tio n a te ly atte n d e d elite (selective) colleges, m e an in g th a t th e SAT w as p ro b
ably im p o rta n t in th e ir lives. M any are also p are n ts w hose ch ild ren are o r
so o n will be ap p ly in g to such colleges. In th e w ords o f W illiam S ch n eid er
an d I. A. Lewis, d escribing the results o f a 1985 L o s A n g eles T im es poll o f
over 2.700 new sp ap er jo u rn a lists a n d nearly 3,000 m e m b ers o f th e general
public:
Thus, what we end up with is an impression of newspaper journalists as
something like "superyuppies.” They are emphatically liberal on social issues
and foreign affairs, distrustful of establishment institutions (government,
business, labor), and protective of their own economic interests.20
Besides th e perso n al in terest o f jo u rn a lists, th e ex tra o rd in a ry a m o u n t o f
198
The IQ Controversy
coverage o f S A T -related issues (relative to th e in te rest in these issues in th e
professional literatu re ) u n d o u b te d ly is d ic tated by c e rta in o rg an iz atio n al
c o n stra in ts o f th e m edia. Jo u rn a lists m u st be able to tell a readily u n d e r
sta n d ab le sto ry o n issues o f m a jo r n atio n al a n d c o m m u n ity in terest. F or
b e tte r o r w orse, SAT scores have been accep ted by large p o rtio n s o f th e
new s m ed ia as a sim ple m etric o f th e q u ality o f A m e ric a ’s high schools. T h e
very large n u m b e r o f stories describ in g th e tw e n ty -y e a r d eclin e in SAT
scores alm o st in v ariab ly ad dress the issue o f th e q u a lity o f th e schools.
T h u s SAT stories beco m e m o re th a n m erely a d escrip tio n o f test results.
T h e desire to tell a readily u n d e rsta n d a b le sto ry m ay also ex p lain th e
sm aller a m o u n t o f coverage o f Issues c o n c e rn in g “ T h e N a tu re o f In te l
ligence” a n d “ Test U se an d M isuse.” T h ese Issues have played a m a jo r role
in professional discussion o f testing, b u t th ey te n d to be am o n g th e m o st
te ch n ic al o f te stin g -re la te d topics, involving fac to r analyses, reliab ility a n d
v alidity coefficients, a n d larg e -scale studies o f testin g effects. It is o ften
difficult to tell a good sto ry w ith these d a ta given th e p ro d u c tio n c o n
stra in ts an d so m e tim es in a d e q u a te tech n ical tra in in g o f jo u rn a lists. G a n s
n o tes th a t th e jo u rn a lis ts he stu d ied explicitly reject from co n sid eratio n
m e m b ers o f th e au d ien c e they co n sid er “ 'w o u ld -b e in tellectu als’ w ho are
th o u g h t to w an t m o re d etailed o r m o re an a ly tic— a n d th u s b o rin g — stories
th a n th e jo u rn a lists are w illing o r able to supply.”21 R e p o rte rs for th e telev i
sion netw orks, w hose ability to tell a d etailed sto ry is severely lim ite d by
th e available tim e, hold th is view even m o re stro n g ly th a n th o se at th e
n ew sm agazines, w hich m ay explain th e alm o st to ta l ab sen ce o f n etw o rk
coverage o f Issues I th ro u g h IV. C o n siste n t w ith th ese co n sid eratio n s, w hen
te ch n ic al issues like h eritab ility are co n sid ered by th e v ario u s m ed ia, they
are usually oversim plified, a n d often grossly in a cc u ra te.
G eneraI Tone o f Coverage
T able 6.2 lists co d e r ratings o f testin g an d h eritab ility to n e o f articles an d
b ro ad c ast segm ents from each new s source. T h e testin g to n e d a ta in clu d e
all cod ed new s stories, th e h eritab ility to n e d a ta in c lu d e o n ly th o se articles
an d b ro ad c asts co n sid erin g Issues V, VI, VII, o r X I (“T h e H erita b ility o f
IQ ,” “G ro u p D ifferences in IQ ,” “O th e r Issues C o n c e rn in g H e rrn s te in ,
Je n sen , o r Shockley,” an d “G ro u p D ifferences in SAT S co re”), th a t is, o nly
tho se stories in w hich h eritab ility co u ld possibly be co n sid ered .
R atings o f general to n e (i.e., a u th o r ’s o r re p o rte r’s a ttitu d e ) are p o te n
tially th e m o st subjective p a rt o f th e c o n te n t analysis. T h erefo re, coders
w ere in stru c ted to be as conserv ativ e as possible in m ak in g to n e ratings,
c o d in g to n e as an y th in g o th e r th a n n eu tra l only w hen ab so lu tely c e rta in
199
TABLE 6.2
General Tone of Articles and Broadcast Segments
Testing:
Pro-Testing
Anti-Testing
Neutral
New York Washington Wall Street
News
Times
Post
Journal Magazines
18
15
2
35
214
18
90
0
20
6
7
54
Television
Networks
0
3
62
Heritability of Test Scores:“
Innate
Learned
Neutral
13
0
1
1
1
39
16
4
3
119
60
0
12
45
28
“In c lu d e s o n ly articles a n d b ro a d c ast seg m en ts co n sid e rin g Issues V. V I,V II, o r XI.
(see th e in stru c tio n s. A ppendix C). As a result, rating s o f to n e are ex trem ely
reliable, b u t are rarely coded as an y th in g o th e r th a n n eu tral.
N ew spapers. N early 20 p erc en t o f all N Y T articles are rated as having
o th e r th a n a n eu tra l to n e regarding testin g in general. O f these, alm o st
tw o -th ird s are a n ti-te stin g . T h e difference in th e p ro p o rtio n o f N Y T a r ti
cles rated p r o - a n d a n ti-te s tin g is statistically significant. W P articles are
slightly m ore likely to be rated as o th e r th a n n eu tra l (26.8 percent), b u t
these articles are n o m o re likely, statistically, to be p r o - th a n a n ti-te stin g .
T h e W S J had to o few articles for m eaningful results.
T h e h eritab ility to n e results p resen t clearer evid en ce for a slan t in th e
re p o rtin g o f testin g related issues, th o u g h once again, th e vast m a jo rity o f
articles are rated as n eu tral. Slightly m o re th a n 30 p erc en t o f all relev an t
N Y T articles are rated as o th e r th a n n eu tra l w ith regard to th e h eritab ility
o f test score. O f these, articles em p h asizin g th a t skills m easu red by in te l
ligence an d a p titu d e tests are learn ed are th ree tim es m o re c o m m o n th a n
th o se stressing in n a te factors. In th e W P, 21 p erc en t o f articles are o th e r
th a n n eu tra l w ith regard to heritability, an d all o f these are rated as e m p h a
sizing th e learn ed n a tu re o f intelligence.
T h e d ic h o to m o u s n a tu re o f th e h eritab ility ratings (in n a te vs. le arn ed )
m ig h t seem co u n te rfa c tu a l in light o f th e g e n e -e n v iro n m e n t syn th esis d is
cussed in C h a p te r 3, b u t these ratings w ere designed to reflect th e realities
o f new s m e d ia coverage, n o t th e facts o f h u m a n d ev elo p m en t. T h e new s
m e d ia have a stro n g te n d en c y to cast all “controv ersies” in b la c k - a n d w h ite te rm s in w hich only th e m o st ex tre m e p o sitio n s are rep resen ted ,
o ften at th e expense o f scientific accuracy. T h e h eritab ility issue is a p rim e
ex am p le o f th is style, w here th e idea o f th e eq u al im p o rta n c e o f genes a n d
e n v iro n m e n t in d ev e lo p m e n t seem s often to be lost (see th e d iscussion o f
q u e s tio n 5 in C h a p te r 2). C onsider, for exam ple, th e M arch 3 1 ,1 9 6 9 N ew s-
200
The IQ Controversy
w eek article on Je n sen , w hich begins, “ Is intelligence in h e rited o r d e te r
m in e d by th e e n v iro n m e n t? ” an d th e n a ttrib u te s to Je n sen th e b elief th a t
“ intelligence is fixed at b irth ;” o r th e T’/m e a rtic le o fD e c e m b e r 19, 1977, in
w hich th e a u th o r claim s th a t "[f]ew s u p p o rt H arv ard P sychologist R ich ard
H e rrn s te in ’s p o sitio n th a t intelligence is p rim a rily an in n a te ability, rather
th a n an evolving cap acity resu ltin g from th e interp lay o f m e n tal q u ick n ess
an d en v iro n m e n ta l co n d itio n in g .” (em p h asis ad d ed ) N o t o nly have th e
new s m ed ia been guilty o f o v ersim plification, b u t th ey are m o re likely to
stress to th e ir read ers o n e side o f this false dichotom y.
S tro n g a ttitu d e s are, by d efin itio n , m o re likely to be expressed in ed i
to rials, letters to th e editor, a n d b o o k review s th a n in featu re articles. In
fact, th e re are so m e strik in g differences in to n e betw een each o f th ese
a rtic le types. Table 6.3 show s th e n u m b e r o f new sp ap er article s receiving
each o f th e to n e ratings fo r each article type. E d ito rials are significantly
m o re likely to be p ro -te s tin g th a n featu re articles (w hen ed ito rials, letters
to th e editor, a n d b o o k review s are excluded, n ew sp ap er articles are m u c h
m o re fre q u en tly a n t i- th a n p ro -te stin g ), th o u g h n o m o re likely to favor th e
in n a te th a n th e le arn ed p o sitio n o n th e h eritab ility o f te st scores. L etters to
th e e d ito r are also significantly m o re p ro -te s tin g th a n fea tu re articles, a n d
significantly m o re likely to ta k e th e in n a te stan ce o n heritability, o ften in
response to th e s u p p o rt o f th e le arn ed p o sitio n fo u n d in featu re articles,
edito rials, a n d book review s. Book review s are, q u ite clearly, th e m o st
o p in io n a te d o f all new sp ap er articles. N early 40 p erc en t are rated as o th e r
th a n n e u tra l on te stin g to n e , a n d ov er 60 p e rc e n t are n o t n e u tra l o n
h eritability. In b o th cases, all n o n - n e u tr a l b o o k review s are a n ti-te s tin g
a n d favor th e le arn ed p o sitio n on heritability. T one ratin g s for b o o k re
views are based on bo th th e d escrip tio n o f th e b o o k b eing review ed a n d th e
c o m m e n ts o f th e reviewer. T hese ratin g s reflect b o th a p re d o m in a n c e o f
TABLE 6.3
General Tone of Newspaper Articles by Article Type
Testing
Pro-Testing
Anti-Testing
Neutral
Feature
Article
Editorial
Letter to the
Editor
Book
Review
5
25
228
17
9
40
13
10
42
0
9
14
1
12
53
10
11
44
0
14
9
Heritability of Test Scores:“
Innate
Learned
Neutral
3
21
234
“In c lu d e s o n ly a rtic le s c o n sid e rin g Issues V, V I, V II, o r X I
201
a n ti-te s tin g a n d a n ti-g e n e tic b o o k s an d a g ro u p o f b o o k review ers sy m p a
th e tic to these view points.
N e w sm a g a zin es. Slightly less th a n 20 p erc en t o f n ew sm agazine articles
are rated as o th e r th a n n eu tra l in general testin g ton e. T h ese ratin g s are n o
m o re likely to be p r o - th a n a n ti-te stin g . O nly five o f fifty rele v an t new s
m a g az in e a rtic le s receive o th e r th a n n e u tra l h e r ita b ility - to n e ratin g s.
T h ese n u m b e rs are to o sm all for an y significant differences to appear.
Television netw orks. Television b ro ad c asts are rated as overw helm ingly
n eu tra l w ith regard to testin g in general an d th e h eritab ility issue, a n d th e re
are no significant differences a m o n g th e n o n - n e u tr a l ratings, th o u g h th e
tre n d s are c o n siste n t w ith tho se from th e new spapers (a n ti-te s tin g an d
learned).
D espite som e in d ic atio n th a t th e new s m e d ia m ay be p rese n tin g stories
c o n c e rn in g testin g in a so m e w h at slan ted m a n n er, th e m a jo rity o f all p rin t
an d b ro ad cast stories are rated as n eu tra l in th e overall im p ressio n w ith
w hich they leave th e reader. T h is is n o t to say, however, th a t th e m ed ia are
generally accu rate a n d objective in th e ir coverage o f te stin g issues. As m an y
o f tho se w ho have stu d ied th e new s m ed ia have n o te d , m e d ia bias is m o re
o ften reflected in th e selection o f stories th a n in a biased ac c o u n tin g w ith in
an y given story. To th is we ad d th a t in accu racies in te ch n ic al stories resu lt
w hen th e re is m o re co n c ern w ith ap p e alin g to th e au d ien c e th a n w ith
o bjectively re p o rtin g w h at th e technical ex p e rts have to say. T h e d eter
m in a tio n o f such bias an d in accu racy in m ed ia ac c o u n ts o f testin g req u ires
a m o re d etailed analysis o f th e specific c o n te n t o f new s stories an d , p a r
ticularly, th e m e d ia ’s use o f ex p e rt o p in io n . T h a t analysis is th e su b ject o f
th e n ex t chapter.
N otes
1. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Profile o f American Youth (Wash
ington, DC: Author, 1982).
2. Lynne Sussman, “Press Coverage of the 1982 Profile o f American Youth Study:
The Intersection of Journalism, Social Science Research, and the Pentagon.”
Paper presented at the convention of the American Association of Public O pin
ion Research. Buckhill Falls, PA, May 1983.
3. Ibid., p. 4.
4. Ibid., p. 6.
5. R. Darrell Bock and Elsie G. J. Moore, Profile o f American Youth: Demographic
Influences on ASVAB Test Performance (Washington, DC: GPO. 1984), pp.
268-271.
6. Edward Jay Epstein. News From Nowhere (New York: Random House, 1973);
Herbert J. Gans, Deciding W hat’s News (New York: Pantheon, 1979); June
Goodfield. Reflections on Science and the Media (Washington. DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1981); Carol Weiss and Elinor
202
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The IQ Controversy
Singer, The National M edia Report Social Science (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, forthcoming).
Sussman, p. 5.
Gans, pp. 42-52.
S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda S. Lichter. The M edia Elite
(Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986), p. 14.
Sussman, p. 7.
Ibid., p. 9.
Weiss and Singer, Chapter 6.
Ibid., Chapter 10.
For example, Goodfield, p. 22; Lichter et al, pp. 52-86.
Epstein, pp. 271-272.
Lichter et al. p. 54.
Ibid., p. 2 8 4 .
C a r o l W e is s , “ W h a t A m e r i c a s L e a d e r s R e a d , ” Public Opinion Quarterly' 38
(1 9 7 4 ): 1 -2 2 .
19. Gans, p. 230.
20. William Schneider and I. A. Lewis, “Views on the News," Public Opinion 8
(August/September 1985):8.
21. Gans, p. 240.
7
No News Is Good News: The Nature of
News Media Coverage
T h e p u rp o se o f th is c o n te n t analysis is to describe o bjectively th e way in
w hich th e elite p rin t a n d television m ed ia have ch a racterize d th e v ario u s
issues c o n stitu tin g th e IQ controversy. In th e last ch a p te r we ex a m in e d th e
e x ten t o f m edia coverage o f th e controversy, in c lu d in g th e d istrib u tio n o f
issues considered. T his ch a p te r focuses on th e specific rep rese n tatio n o f
key topics. W h at d o the new s m edia have to say a b o u t each o f th e issues
co n sid ered in th e ir coverage o f testing? W h a t p o sitio n s on co n tro v ersial
to p ics are rep resen ted , a n d how are they ch aracterized ? We are p articu la rly
in terested in the new s m edia's ch a ra c te riz a tio n o f e x p e rt o p in io n a b o u t
testing, an d in a c o m p ariso n betw een new s m ed ia coverage a n d the results
o f o u r ex p ert survey.
T h e ch a p te r is o rg anized a ro u n d a series o f six Issue groups, c o rre sp o n d
ing to th e Issues described in th e last chapter, as well as to th e d iscussion in
C h a p te rs 2 th ro u g h 5. T hese Issue g roups are th e N a tu re o f Intelligence
(Issues I an d II; C h a p te r 2), Intelligence Test U se a n d M isuse (Issues III an d
IV; C h a p te r 5), H erita b ility a n d G ro u p D ifferences in IQ (Issues V th ro u g h
V II; C h a p te rs 3 a n d 4). th e SAT (Issues V III th ro u g h X I; C h a p te r 5), E m
p lo y m e n t Testing (Issue X II; C h a p te r 5), an d T esting O u tsid e th e U n ite d
S tates (Issue XIII). T h e em p h asis p laced on each o f th ese subjects in new s
m ed ia coverage is very d ifferent from th a t to be fo u n d in th e em p irica l
literatu re , a fact o f som e im p o rta n c e , b u t the issues th em selv es re m a in th e
sam e. T herefore, th e follow ing a c c o u n t o f th e m e d ia ’s ch a ra c te riz a tio n o f
testin g related to p ics sh o u ld be directly rele v an t to th e q u e s tio n o f new s
m ed ia accuracy in d escribing ex p e rt o p in io n an d in co n v ey in g em p irical
facts a b o u t testing.
203
204
The IQ Controversy
The Nature o f Intelligence
N ew spapers
C o m m e n ts on n ew spaper coverage are based o n th e fifty -th re e article s
co n sid erin g to p ics related to th e n a tu re o f intelligence in th e N ew York
T im e s (N Y T ) a n d tw e n ty -n in e such articles in th e W ashington Post (W P ).
C overage in these tw o new spapers is highly sim ilar; th e fo u r relev an t W all
S treet Jo u rn a l (ICS-/ ) articles provide to o little co d e for m ean in g fu l an aylsis.
In general, th e N Y T an d W P p o rtra y intellig en ce as a p o o rly defined,
p o o rly m e a su re d c o n c e p t, a n d in te llig e n c e te sts as n a rro w ly fo cu se d ,
p o o rly d eveloped m easu res o f ach iev em en t. F o r ex am p le, eleven articles
(eight N Y T , th ree W P) co n sid er th e q u estio n o f th e d efin itio n o f in te l
ligence; all re p o rt th a t intelligence is n o t well defined. E ight articles (five
N Y T , th ree W P) re p o rt th a t intelligence is to o b ro a d a co n c ep t to be
m e asu red by a single test; on ly o n e o f these articles gives th e o th e r side o f
th e a rg u m e n t as well. T h ere are eighteen ac c o u n ts (eleven N Y T , seven W P)
d escrib in g how intelligence tests m e asu re on ly a n arro w ran g e o f m e n tal
ability; no new sp ap er artic le provides an y in fo rm a tio n to c o u n te r th is
assertio n .
C o n sid er th e follow ing sta te m e n t from an A ugust 29, 1971, N Y T featu re
article:
There is little agreement among scientists as to what intelligence really is, and
it is readily conceded by most psychologists that the I.Q. tests measure a
relatively narrow range of mental attributes.
T h e a u th o r uses as his source th e ex p e rt p o p u la tio n as a w hole. U sually,
jo u rn a lis ts are careful n o t to a ttrib u te sta te m e n ts to m o st o r all ex p erts;
m o re c o m m o n is th e use o f a q u o ta tio n o r cita tio n fro m a single ex p e rt, o r
an u n a ttrib u te d assertio n by th e auth o r. A m o n g all so u rces fo r sta te m e n ts
c o n c e rn in g th e n a tu re o f intelligence in th e N Y T a n d W P, 39 p e rc e n t are a
single ex p e rt (in clu d in g H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , o r Shockley), a n d 32 p erc en t
are sim ply stated o r im p lied by th e author. A n o th e r 21 p erc en t are n o n e x
p e rt others, such as th e N A A C P a n d o th e r critics o f testing. A s o n e m ig h t
expect, a u th o r assertio n s are m o re c o m m o n in ed ito rials, letters to th e
editor, a n d b o o k review s th a n in featu re articles; assertio n s o r im p lica tio n s
rep rese n t only 20 p erc en t o f featu re article so u rce codes.
In th e last c h a p te r we re p o rte d th a t b o o k review s received th e highest
p ro p o rtio n o f a n ti-te s tin g ratings (C h a p te r 6, T able 6.3). A g o o d e x a m p le is
p ro v id ed in th e D ecem b er 2, 1972, “ Books” sectio n o f th e W P, in w hich
The Nature of News Media Coverage
205
W ilson C. M cW illiam s, a professor o f p olitical science, review s five b ooks
a b o u t intelligence, in c lu d in g o n e each by Je n sen a n d H e rrn s te in . M c
W illiam s sets up Je n sen an d H e rrn ste in as the bad guys ag ain st th e re m a in
ing a u th o rs an d th e rest o f b ehavioral science. M ost o f th e c o m m e n ts
co n c ern h eritab ility a n d g ro u p differences, b u t th e re is discussion o f th e
n a tu re o f intelligence:
[Jensen and Herrnstein] and their confreres have devoted their lives to IQ
testing and. despite a few disclaimers, they equate IQ with intelligence. Ask
the Emperor if his new clothes are real, but do not expect Jensen or H errns
tein to consider that the equation may be false. But that is the real point at
issue. IQ measures something, but it is not at all clear that the something is
intelligence.. . . In fact. IQ is as defective in what it omits from a definition of
intelligence as it is in what is included.
In fact, m o st ex p e rts w ould disagree, as th e response to survey q u estio n s 3
a n d 4 indicates. M oreover, bo th Je n sen a n d H e rrn s te in ca m e to th e q u es
tio n o f intelligence late in th e ir careers, a n d n e ith e r has a vested in te rest in
testing.
O th e r sta te m e n ts a b o u t th e n a tu re o f intelligence in n ew sp ap er coverage
in clu d e ten d escrip tio n s (seven N Y T . th ree W P) o f in tellig en ce tests as
p rim a rily m easu res o f te s t-ta k in g skills (only o n e o f these articles also
re p o rts th e opposite), an d five sta te m e n ts (tw o N Y T , th ree W P) th a t test
q u estio n s are p oorly conceived o r a m b ig u o u s (n o a rg u m e n ts to th e c o n
trary). E ighteen tim es the N Y T (eight articles) an d W P (ten articles) re p o rt
th a t intelligence tests are p rim a rily m e asu res o f ex p o su re to relev an t e n
v iro n m e n ts (i.e.. m easu res o f achievem ent). In only on e o f th e N Y T articles
is an y o th e r o p in io n represen ted . W h en a F eb ru ary 10. 1982, W P ed ito rial
re p o rts th a t th e N a tio n a l A cadem y o f Sciences panel h ad recently c o n
clu d ed th a t sta n d ard iz ed ability tests are useful p red ic to rs o f acad em ic a n d
jo b p erfo rm an ce , th e ed ito rs also claim th a t ” [t]his h o ld s tru e for b o th
ac h ie v em e n t tests an d so -c a lle d a p titu d e tests, w hich largely m easu re th e
sam e th in g — w h at a person know s at th e tim e he o r she tak es th e test, n o t
in h e re n t ability to learn. . . . N o r d o th e differences in average scores say
a n y th in g a b o u t in d iv id u a l p o te n tia l.” E ven w hen re p o rtin g g o o d new s
a b o u t tests, th e editors' co n fu sio n over th e a p titu d e -a c h ie v e m e n t d istin c
tio n (an d th e ir b elief in h u m a n eq u ip o te n tia lity ) p rev en t th e m from g etting
th e facts straight.
N ew spaper coverage o f the n a tu re o f intelligence is n o t co m p letely in a c
cu ra te. however. O u r ex p e rt sam ple generally believes th a t such facto rs as
a ttitu d e an d m o tiv atio n can have a significant effect on test p e rfo rm a n c e
(q u e stio n 8). N ew sp a p er coverage reflects th is co n sen su s: n in e a rtic le s
(seven N Y T an d tw o W P) re p o rt a significant effect o f a ttitu d e an d m o tiv a-
206
The IQ Controversy
tio n , o n e o f th e N Y T articles re p o rts th e o p p o site o p in io n as well, a n d o n e
W P a rtic le re p o rts only th a t a ttitu d e a n d m o tiv a tio n have little effect. E ven
w hen new sp ap er coverage is co n siste n t w ith ex p e rt o p in io n , however, th e
facts often are re p o rte d in a way th a t m akes th e situ a tio n look w orse th a n it
p ro b ab ly is. U n d e r th e h ead in g “ S tories T h a t Test S cores D o n ’t Tell,” in
th e M ay 1, 1977, N Y T “ S pring Survey o f E d u c a tio n ,” E. J. D io n n e Jr. tells
th e follow ing story:
For some of [a high school guidance counselor’s] students, however, the tests
proved to be nightmares. One girl who placed very high in her class panicked
on every standardized test. Often, said Mrs. Yeagle, she would lose her place
and mark the right answer in the wrong boxes. “Her test scores were disas
trous,” Mrs. Yeagle said.
M e m o ra b le tales like th is c a p tu re th e re a d e r’s a tte n tio n , b u t th ey m ay be
m isleading in th e absence o f an y in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e p rev alen ce o f such
h o rro r stories.
F ifty -e ig h t p erc en t o f ex p e rts surveyed believe th a t in telligence tests
m e asu re le arn in g p o te n tia l (capacity to a c q u ire know ledge). Two W P a r ti
cles assert th is p ro p o sitio n . F o u r o th e r W P article s assert o r cite ex p erts
w ho believe th e o pposite. O u r ex p e rts see intelligence, as m e asu red by
tests, as so m ew h at less stable an a ttrib u te th a n height (q u estio n 6, th o u g h it
is clear th a t IQ is, by an y ab so lu te sta n d a rd , highly stable, p a rtic u la rly after
age eight). N ew sp ap er coverage split o n th is q u estio n . Five article s (fo u r
N Y T , o n e WP) state th a t test scores are reliable an d stable, a n d fo u r (th ree
N Y T , o n e W P) em p h asize th e possibility o f large flu ctu atio n s in test score
th ro u g h o u t o n e ’s lifetim e. It is in te restin g th a t no a rtic le p resen ts b o th sides
o f th e a rg u m e n t, a n d th a t in fo u r o f th e five articles claim in g stability,
Je n sen is th e on ly source. T h ese articles, like m o st o f th o se c o n ta in in g
positive sta te m e n ts a b o u t th e n a tu re o f intelligence, are re p o rts o f J e n s e n ’s
beliefs a b o u t testing, usually ac c o m p a n ie d by critical response.
O n e o f few good things new spapers have to say a b o u t th e c o n te n t o f
intelligence tests is co n ta in e d in eight article s (five N Y T , th ree W P) re p o rt
ing th a t these tests m easu re ab stra ct reaso n in g o r p ro b lem solving (th ere
are no re p o rts to th e co n trary ). T h e m o st c o m m o n so u rce for th is p o sitio n
is Je n sen , a c c o u n tin g for h a lf th e a ttrib u tio n s. F in d in g o th e r ex p e rt sources
c o u ld n ’t have been difficult, as 80 p erc en t o f o u r ex p e rt survey agree w ith
Je n sen . In fact, th ro u g h o u t th is Issue group, in th o se rare cases w here
positive sta te m e n ts a b o u t testin g are m ade, th ey are alm o st always a t
trib u te d to Je n sen or, occasionally, H e rrn ste in . O n th e o th e r side, o n e
freq u en tly finds such a n ti-te s tin g psychologists as L eon K am in . Ja n e M er
cer, R o b e rt W illiam s, an d Je ro m e K agan. Such a d ich o to m y , p a rtic u la rly
207
w hen coverage o f th e la tte r gro u p is p re d o m in a n t, is h ard ly rep resen tativ e
o f ex p e rt o p in io n .
N e w sm a g a zin es
T h ere are tw e n ty -fo u r relev an t new sm agazine articles. O verall, coverage
o f th e n a tu re o f intelligence looks very m u ch like th a t in th e N Y T a n d W P,
w ith one im p o rta n t ex cep tio n th a t holds tru e for all Issues in th e c o n te n t
an a ly sis. N e w sm a g a z in e s a re m u c h m o re likely to d raw fro m e x p e rt
sources, a n d less likely to assert o r im ply som eth in g , th a n are new spapers
a n d television. S ev en ty -e ig h t p erc en t o f all new sm ag azin e a ttrib u tio n s on
th e n a tu re o f intelligence are to o n e or m o re experts, w hile o n ly 9 p erc en t
are asserted o r im plied. A m ong n ew spaper featu re articles (th e m o re a p
p ro p ria te c o m p a riso n , since new sm agazine pieces are a lm o st exclusively
featu re articles) th e co m p arab le figures are 51 p erc en t a n d 20 p ercen t.
T elevision coverage o f th e n a tu re o f intelligence em plo y s o n ly tw e n ty -th re e
to ta l sources, b u t only 35 p erc en t o f these are experts, a n d 35 p erc en t are
assertio n s o r im p licatio n s.
N ew sm agazines, like new spapers, p rim a rily describe tests as n arro w ly
defined m easu res o f a poorly u n d e rsto o d c o n c ep tio n o f intelligence. Five
article s cite ex p erts an d o th e rs claim in g th a t intelligence is n o t well d e
fined, an d one a rtic le attrib u te s th e o p p o site o p in io n to Jen sen . F o u r a r ti
cles claim th a t intelligence is to o m u lti-fa c e te d to be m e asu red by a single
test, w hile only o n e o f these cites so m e ex p erts as b elieving th e co n trary .
Seven articles tell us th a t intelligence tests reflect a n arro w c o n c ep tio n o f
intelligence, a n d o n e also tells us th a t Je n sen believes th e o p p o site. N ew s
m ag azine articles are th r e e -to -tw o positive on intelligence tests as m e a
su res o f a c h ie v em e n t (the tw o dissenting articles cite Jensen), f o u r- to - z e ro
o n test q u e stio n s being p o o rly conceived, an d z e r o - to - f o u r o n test scores
being stable. T aken together, these d a ta in d ic ate an ex trem ely negative
p ic tu re o f intelligence tests, o n e very different from th e resu lts o f o u r
ex p e rt survey.
O n th e positive side, new sm agazine article s are e ig h t- to -z e r o on in te l
ligence tests m easu rin g a b stra c t reaso n in g o r p ro b lem solving, a n d th r e e to -z e ro o n le arn in g p o te n tia l. N ew sm agazines also find it easy to reflect
th e ex p e rt co n sen su s on th e effects o f m o tiv a tio n a l a n d p erso n ality v aria
bles on test p erfo rm an ce , being th r e e - to - o n e positive.
Television N etw orks
As th e re are only eight relev an t television b road casts, it is difficult to
reach any stro n g co n c lu sio n s a b o u t netw o rk T V coverage o f th e n a tu re o f
208
The IQ Controversy
intelligence. W h a t coverage th e re is, however, is en tirely negative. O n e
b ro ad cast re p o rts th a t intelligence c a n n o t be m easu red by a single test, tw o
tell us th a t tests reflect a n arro w c o n c ep tio n o f intelligence, fo u r eq u a te
in te llig en c e w ith a c h ie v e m e n t tests, o n e c laim s th a t te st q u e s tio n s are
p oorly conceived, an d a n o th e r th a t scores are un stab le. T h e sole po sitiv e
s ta te m e n t a b o u t th e n a tu re o f intelligence in telev isio n b ro ad c asts is an
interview w ith Je n sen in w hich he states his b elief th a t in tellig en ce tests
m e a s u r e a b s tr a c t r e a s o n in g a n d p ro b le m so lv in g . T h a t th is s la n te d
coverage rep rese n ts bias o n th e p a rt o f n etw ork telev isio n rep o rters a n d /o r
executives is in d ic ated in th a t m o re th a n o n e - th ird o f th ese negative sta te
m e n ts are asserted o r im p lied w ith no citatio n .
T h e television re p o rt th a t intelligence test scores are u n sta b le co m es
from th e CBS N ew s special T h e IQ M y th , o rigin ally b ro ad c ast on A pril 22,
1975, a n d su b se q u en tly reb ro ad cast. D an R a th e r ex p lain s, “O n o n e im p o r
ta n t p o in t, how ever, all b u t a few o f th e ex p e rts agree: ce rtain ly o ver th e
span o f a lifetim e, an in d iv id u a l’s IQ ca n change d ram atically.” L ike m a n y
o f th e sta te m e n ts in th is CBS b ro ad c ast, R a th e r’s claim is n o t factu ally
in c o rrec t, b u t it is highly m isleading. W hile it is tru e th a t IQ can ch an g e
d ram atically, such changes a re alm o st always d u rin g th e first eight years o f
life, a n d usually ac c o m p a n y m assive e n v iro n m e n ta l changes. M oreover,
w hile IQ can ch ange d ram a tic ally afte r age eight, it very rarely h ap p en s. By
citin g ex p e rt o p in io n in th is way. R a th e r gives th e im p ressio n th a t ex p e rts
a tta c h little im p o rta n c e to th e IQ , since th ey know it is liable to ch an g e at
a n y m o m e n t.
W h a t is m o st b o th e rso m e a b o u t new s m ed ia coverage o f to p ics related to
th e n a tu re o f intelligence is n o t th e a m o u n t o f p rin t a n d air space given to
criticism s o f testing; these criticism s have all been m ad e elsew here, a n d th e
m e d ia m ay feel it is th e ir o b lig atio n to re p o rt th e m in light o f th e im p o rta n t
role played by tests. W h a t is b o th e rso m e is th e exceedingly d isp ro p o rtio n
ate coverage given to these criticism s, in c lu d in g fre q u e n t assertio n s o f a n ti
testin g se n tim e n ts by jo u rn a lists, a n d m is re p re se n ta tio n o f ex p e rt o p in io n .
It is tru e, for exam p le, th a t ex p e rts disagree a b o u t th e n a tu re o f in te l
ligence, an d th a t intelligence tests do n o t m easu re all im p o rta n t aspects o f
intelligence. B ut to stress th ese p o in ts rep eated ly w hile giving v irtu a lly n o
coverage to th e rough, b u t im p o rta n t, e q u a tio n betw een IQ a n d in te l
ligence is to d o a g reat disservice to b o th e x p e rt o p in io n a n d th e testin g
en terp rise.
T h a t o u r c o n te n t analysis coders re p o rt fre q u e n t negative s ta te m e n ts
a b o u t th e n a tu re o f intelligence, w ith alm o st n o sta te m e n ts to th e co n trary ,
reflects th e absence, in new s m e d ia coverage, o f even so sim p le a sta te m e n t
as “th e re is a contro v ersy a b o u t . . . ” Instead, criticism s a re re p o rte d an d
left u nansw ered. M any o f th o se w ho stu d y th e new s m e d ia have accu sed
209
jo u rn a lis ts o f p a in tin g all contro v ersies in black a n d w hite, as if th e re were
only tw o leg itim ate an d p o la r opp o site p o sitio n s on an y issue. For m a n y
to p ics related to th e n a tu re o f intelligence, th e m ed ia have n o t p ro v id ed
even such a sim plistic fo rm o f balance.
Intelligence Test Use and M isuse
N ew spapers
T h ere are fifty N Y T an d tw e n ty -six W P articles (only th ree in th e W SJ)
th a t deal in so m e way w ith intelligence te st use o r m isuse. M an y o f th e
tre n d s a p p a re n t in coverage o f th e n a tu re o f intelligence are even m o re
p ro m in e n t in new sp ap er coverage o f these topics. T h e N Y T a n d W P u n
critically re p o rt a w ide v ariety o f test m isuses, w hile ac cep tin g o n ly th e
m o st w idely recognized o f test uses. Je n sen a n d F lerrn stein are o n ce again
th e p rim a ry sp o k e sm en for test validity.
T h e o n e fact a b o u t intelligence an d a p titu d e tests th a t v irtu a lly ev ery o n e
accepts is th a t th ey are good p red ic to rs o f p e rfo rm a n c e in school. T w en ty tw o n ew spaper article s (n in eteen N Y T , th ree W P) co n sid e r intelligence
tests as p red ic to rs o f ac ad e m ic success, an d all o f th em are coded positive,
w hile th ree articles also co n sid er th e opp o site o p in io n . T h ese positive sta te
m e n ts a b o u t testin g are, however, alm o st always in th e c o n te x t o f a d iscu s
sion o f test m isuse. For exam ple, in an artic le en title d “ I.Q . Tests O nce
A gain D istu rb E d u cato rs” in th e N Y T ed u c a tio n su p p le m e n t o f M ay 1,
1977, Paul J. F louts explains th a t m an y ed u c ato rs believe th a t th e use o f
in telligence tests to identify th e le arn in g d isabled will lead to th e m islab el
ing o f large n u m b e rs o f ch ild ren , th a t “ an I.Q . can literally d e te rm in e a
c h ild ’s f u tu re ,” a n d th a t te sts m e asu re a lim ite d b o d y o f m id d le class
know ledge. Finally, he adm its:
To a certain extent the tests do predict how well children will fare later in
school, although at its best an I.Q. score is only a very rough guide— the
correlation is about the same as that between height and weight.
But the correlation itself is predictable. After all, it is reasonable to assume
that if children perform well on certain kinds of puzzles and questions, the
chances are that they will perform well on future puzzles and questions of a
similar nature. In this sense, I.Q. tests children’s test-taking skills as much as
anything.
T h e only o th e r intelligence test uses new spapers seem w illing to accept
are as discoverers o f h id d en ta len t, an d as d iagnostic to o ls for id en tify in g
ch ild ren w ith specific prob lem s, b u t these are rarely m e n tio n e d . Two N Y T
210
The IQ Controversy
articles re p o rt th a t intelligence tests can discover h id d e n ta len t, a n d n in e
new sp ap er article s (five N Y T , four W P) are positive a b o u t test use for
diagnoses, th o u g h tw o o f these also give th e c o n tra stin g o p in io n . T h e m o st
c o m m o n source for these test uses are n o t experts, b u t oth ers, like school
b o ard m e m b ers a n d te ach ers w ho re p o rt on th e ir p ractical ex p erien ce w ith
tests.
In q u estio n 6 o f the ex p e rt survey, over 75 p erc en t o f re sp o n d e n ts in d i
cate they believe IQ to be an im p o rta n t d e te rm in a n t o f so c io eco n o m ic
sta tu s (SES). N o d o u b t even a g rea ter percen tag e w o u ld a d m it th a t IQ is a
good predictor o f SES, regardless o f its causal role. T h e b alan c e o f coverage
in th e new spapers does n o t reflect th is consensu s. Two N Y T an d tw o W P
articles c o n ta in sta te m e n ts in d ic atin g th a t IQ is a good p re d ic to r o f SES.
Five N Y T articles a n d o n e W P artic le p resen t arg u m e n ts to th e co n trary .
Two N Y T a n d fo u r W P article s p resen t th e p o sitio n th a t IQ is an im p o rta n t
d e te rm in a n t o f SES, a n d th re e N Y T a n d tw o W P article s disagree. T h e
m o st c o m m o n sources o n th e positive side o f b o th these arg u m e n ts are
H e rrn s te in a n d Je n sen , w hile th e negative side te n d s to b e m o re often
sta te d o r im p lied th a n a n y th in g else. (T h e re is o n e W S J artic le d ealin g w ith
th ese topics, w hich p resen ts H e rrn s te in ’s arg u m e n ts a b o u t th e rela tio n
b etw een IQ a n d SES w ith o u t reb u ttal.) Two N Y T (Jen sen as so u rce for
b o th ) an d o n e W P article re p o rt th a t intelligence tests are good p red ic to rs
o f jo b p erfo rm an ce . A n o th e r W P article disagrees.
“ C ontro v ersy O ver T esting F lares A g ain ,” th e lead artic le o f th e N Y T
M ay 1, 1977, “ S pring Survey o f E d u c a tio n ,” is w ritten by T im e s ed u c a tio n
e d ito r E dw ard B. Fiske. Its first p ara g ra p h reads:
Controversy over the use and misuse of standardized tests is once again
raging through American education. Four years ago, the National Education
Association, the country’s largest teacher organization, called for a mor
atorium on the use of standardized intelligence, aptitude and achievement
tests on the ground that their results were usually “misleading and unfair."
Minority groups have attacked them for cultural bias and consumer groups
for excessive secrecy. Legislators have moved to give students greater access to
testing data, and at least one court has awarded damages for what am ounted
to misuse of test scores by school officials.
T h e re m a in in g sixteen p a ra g ra p h s o f th e article d o c u m e n t each o f th e
claim s m ad e in th e in tro d u c tio n , citin g n u m e ro u s ex am p les o f test m isuse
a n d criticism s from b o th ex p e rts an d n o n ex p e rts. N o t o n e o f th ese charges
o f m islabeling, te ach in g to th e tests, ov errelian ce o n te st scores, p o o rly
w orded q u estio n s, c u ltu ral bias, an d excessive secrecy in test a d m in is tra
tio n is answ ered by Fiske, o r by an y o n e he cites. Such o n e -sid e d tre a tm e n t
o f th e testing “co n tro v e rsy ” is typical o f th e re m a in in g tw elve articles in th e
N Y T survey, a n d o f new s m ed ia coverage o f test m isuse in general.
211
O u r ex p e rt sam ple agrees th a t test m isuse in e le m e n ta ry a n d seco n d ary
schools is p rev alen t (q u estio n 19), b u t th ey believe th a t te st use sh o u ld
c o n tin u e (q u estio n 27). It is also th e case th a t alm o st h a lf o f all ex p erts
believe test m isuse to be an in fre q u e n t p h e n o m e n o n . Yet in all th e new s
m e d ia coverage o f test m isuse, th e re is v irtu ally n o in d ic a tio n th a t m isuse is
n o t highly p rev a len t o r th a t it d oes n o t com p letely in v a lid a te test use.
In stead , we are told, as in W illiam R a sp b e rry ’s Ju n e 12, 1974, ed ito rial in
th e W P, th a t w hen IQ tests “are used to p red ic t ac ad e m ic success, to g ro u p
ch ild ren acco rd in g to w h eth e r they test o u t slow, average, o r b rig h t, o r to
d e te rm in e w hich ch ild ren are ta u g h t how m u ch o f w h at, th e n th ey can do
m o re h a rm th a n good.”
T h e m o st c o m m o n ly re p o rte d abuse o f testin g involves th e m isclassificatio n o r m islabeling o f ch ild ren on th e basis o f test scores, w ith su b se q u en t
d e trim e n ta l effects o n se lf-im ag e a n d life chances. T w e n ty -n in e N Y T a n d
n in e W P articles discuss th e fre q u e n t o c c u rre n c e o f such ab use, a n d o nly
tw o articles in each source also p rese n t th e possibility th a t m isclassification
is n o t a c o m m o n p h e n o m e n o n . T h e m o st fre q u en tly used sou rces for th e
ex istence o f fre q u e n t m isclassification are n o n e x p e rt o th e rs (e.g., “critics o f
te stin g ,” “ m in o rity g ro u p s,” a n d p la in tiff a tto rn e y s in th e L a rr y P. case)
a n d assertio n s o r im p lica tio n s by th e author. T h e m o st c o m m o n ly cited
ex p e rts are Ja n e M ercer, a n d th e u b iq u ito u s “ m a n y ed u c ato rs.” T h e use o f
assertio n o r im p lica tio n by artic le a u th o rs is often in th e fo rm o f sto ry
telling, in w hich th e plight o f o n e o r m o re ab u sed test ta k ers is ch ro n icled .
T h e follow ing is from “Q u estio n s P aren ts S hould Be A sk in g ” fro m th e
N Y T 1977 “ S pring S urvey o f E d u c a tio n ” :
Youngsters have often been kept out of honors courses or even placed in
classes of slow learners because of the results of standardized achievement or
aptitude tests.
In one such case, the parents of a teen-age girl whose grades ranked her in the
upper quarter of her class were dismayed when their daughter was kept out of
the classes for intellectually gifted pupils of her school.
Meeting with the pupil's adviser, the parents got the impression he had never
before looked at their daughter’s file.
There was a simple explanation for her exclusion, he told the couple. Their
daughter's test scores fell below the admission requirements. Yes, he agreed
when pressed, the results did seem surprisingly low when compared with the
girl’s academic grades. Perhaps, he suggested, their daughter was an over
achiever who should not be pushed beyond her abilities.
T able 7.1 show s th e n u m b e r o f articles from each new s so u rce in w hich
each o f five test abuses is coded as being su p p o rte d (Pos), c o n tra d ic te d
212
The IQ Controversy
TABLE 7.1
Code for Intelligence Test Misuse
1. Students are often misclassified, mislabeled, or stigmatized on the basis of their
intelligence test scores.
NUMBER OF ARTICLES OR BROADCASTS
Positive
Negative
Both
NYT
WP
W SJ
Newsmags
TV
21
0
2
6
0
2
1
0
0
7
0
0
4
0
0
2. A student’s knowledge of his or her intelligence test score often results in negative
self-concepts and expectations (acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy).
Positive
Negative
Both
NYT
WP
3
0
0
3
0
0
W SJ
1
Newsmags
1
0
0
0
0
TV
0
0
0
3. A teacher’s knowledge of a student’s intelligence test score has a significant effec
on student performance.
Positive
Negative
Both
NYT
6
WP
1
W SJ
1
Newsmags
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TV
0
0
0
4. Tests are or have been deliberately used to racist or other inegalitarian ends.
Positive
Negative
Both
NYT
WP
W SJ
Newsmags
TV
15
0
1
6
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
5. Test scores are overrelied upon (are too im portant in people''s lives).
Positive
Negative
Both
NYT
WP
W SJ
Newsmags
TV
11
1
0
7
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
(Neg), o r b o th . It is o b v io u s fro m these d a ta ju s t how u n critica l th e T im e s
a n d Post, a n d th e elite m e d ia in general, have been in re p o rtin g test m isuse.
C o m p a rin g th ese d a ta to th e relev an t survey resp o n ses in C h a p te r 5 is
p a rtic u la rly distressing, especially since ex p e rts are o ften used as sources
for claim s o f test abuse.
T h e use o f ex p e rt sources for test m isuse is n o t as c o m m o n , however, as
it is for test use. N ew sp ap er a u th o rs, p a rtic u la rly in th e N Y T , a p p a re n tly
feel m o re co m fo rta b le assertin g o r im plying vario u s test m isuses th a n test
213
usefulness. A ssertion s o r im p lic a tio n s rep rese n t 42 p erc en t o f N Y T a n d 30
p erc en t o f W P source codes for test m isuse, b u t only 29 p erc en t a n d 21
p e rc e n t for te st use. T h e use o f exp erts, on th e o th e r h a n d , increases from
41 p erc en t in th e N Y T an d 17 p erc en t in th e W P for te st m isuse to 59
p erc en t a n d 52 p erc en t for test use.
Special m e n tio n sh o u ld be m ad e o f test m isuse 4 in T able 7.1, c o n
ce rn in g th e use o f tests for racist o r in e g alitaria n ends. S o m e o f th is code
rep rese n ts claim s o f racism on th e p a rt o f th e S tate o f C a lifo rn ia m ad e by
plaintiffs in th e L a r r y P. case, b u t th e b u lk o f th e co d e c o rre sp o n d s to
v ario u s ac c o u n ts o f th e use o f W orld W ar I A rm y test resu lts by eugenicists
a n d im m ig ra tio n restrictio n ists. T h is h isto ry is very o ften to ld by th e a r ti
cle au th o r, o r else L eon K a m in o r S tep h en Jay G o u ld are cited as sources.
We discussed in C h a p te r 1 how th is h isto ry has been rep eated ly m isre p re
sen ted . T h e new s m e d ia are n o exception.
N e w sm a g a zin e s
T h e re are tw e n ty -o n e relev an t new sm agazine articles. N ew sm agazine
coverage is sim ila r to th a t fro m th e new spapers, w ith th e ex cep tio n th a t th e
m ag azin es te n d to be slightly m o re positive o n test use. N ew sm agazine
coverage is five articles positive, o n e b o th for intellig en ce te st scores p re
d ic tin g school p e rfo rm a n c e , fiv e -to -z e ro for discovering h id d e n ta len t,
fo u r positive to o n e b o th as a diag n o stic tool, th ree positive to o n e negative
as a p re d ic to r o f SES (all p ositive sources are H e rrn s te in ) a n d as a p re d ic to r
o f jo b p erfo rm an ce , a n d tw o positive to o n e negative as a d e te rm in a n t o f
SES (tw o o f th ree positive sources are Jensen). T h e negative code for SES
d e te rm in a tio n is q u ite rem a rk a b le , as R ich a rd B oeth, w ritin g in th e D e
c e m b e r 17, 1973, issue o f N ew sw eek states th a t “ it has n ev er been show n
th a t a 1 5 -p o in t difference in co n c ep tu al intelligence [.sic], as m e asu red by
IQ , has an y significant effect o n p e rfo rm a n c e in a co m p lex society.” O v er
75 p e rc e n t o f e x p e rt resp o n d e n ts disagree.
N ew sm agazine coverage o f te st m isuse to p ic s is show n in Table 7.1. T h e
o n ly n o ta b le difference betw een new sp ap er a n d new sm ag azin e coverage o f
th ese to p ic s is th e p ro p o rtio n a lly less fre q u e n t reference to th e racist his
to ry o f tests. M isclassification is th e m o st fre q u en tly m e n tio n e d fo rm o f
ab u se, as it is for new spapers, a n d th e te n d en c y to w ard sto ry tellin g a n d
d raw ing g en e raliz atio n s fro m specific in stan c es rem ain s. A N o v em b e r 25,
1974, U.S. N e w s a n d W orld R e p o rt article, “ S chool A bility Tests F lu n k in g
O u t? ” answ ers its ow n questio n :
G roup IQ— intelligence quotien t— tests have been banned from public
schools in New York City and Washington, D.C., because critics claimed they
214
The IQ Controversy
mislabeled too many children as “slow” or retarded. In Washington, a study
showed that tw o-thirds of the allegedly deficient students placed in special
education classes didn’t belong there.
Lawrence Plotkin, a psychologist and educational researcher at New York’s
City College recalled the case of a well-known colleague who went on to a
Ph.D. and a highly successful career after scoring low on tests and being
tracked into a vocational school.
T h e U.S. N ew s re p o rte r m ay be right th a t critics believe m islab elin g is so
b ad th a t test use sh o u ld be susp en d ed , b u t th e re is n o in d ic a tio n an y w h ere
else in th e a rtic le th a t an y o n e disagrees.
As w ith to p ic s co n c e rn in g th e n a tu re o f intelligence, n ew sm ag azin e a u
th o rs are far less likely to assert o r im p ly co n c lu sio n s a b o u t testin g th a n are
th e ir co lleag u es a t th e n ew sp ap ers. O n ly 11 p e rc e n t o f n ew sm ag azin e
so urces fo r te st use a n d m isuse are assertio n s o r im p lica tio n s, 62 p erc en t
are o n e o r m o re experts, a n d th e re m a in d e r are n o n e x p e rt o th ers, g enerally
v ario u s “ critics” o f testing.
Television N etw o rks
T h ere are o nly n in e television b ro ad c asts related to in telligence te st use
a n d m isuse, b u t th ese d a ta are co n siste n t w ith th o se fro m o th e r new s
sources. T h e re is o n e positive b ro ad c ast each fo r IQ tests as a p re d ic to r o f
school p e rfo rm a n c e , as a p re d ic to r o f jo b p e rfo rm a n c e , as a d iscoverer o f
h id d e n ta le n t, a n d as a p re d ic to r o f SES. T h ere is o n e negative b ro ad c ast
fo r p re d ic to r o f jo b p erfo rm an ce , SES, a n d d isco v erer o f h id d e n ta len t. All
o f th is negative code com es fro m T h e IQ M y th . A n in te rch an g e betw een
re p o rte r R o b e rt S ch ak n e a n d psychologist D avid M cC lellan d in fo rm s us o f
th e value o f tests:
Schakne: Does an IQ provide in . . . any information of real value about a
person’s ability?
McClelland: Yeah, I think a very limited value, sure. I think it . . . it shows
you some very lim it.. . limited specific abilities that are . .. that are probably
appropriate for certain occupations, yes, I would say that.
Schakne. Such as?
McClelland: Very limited. Making up tests.
T able 7.1 show s a very sm all n u m b e r o f positiv e codes in telev isio n
coverage o f m o st test m isuse, except m isclassification, for w hich th e re are
eight. H a lf o f these rep rese n t coverage o f th e L a r r y P. case. O n N o v em b er
11, 1977, D o n O liver re p o rte d o n th e N B C N ig h tly N ew s th a t “ [ a tto rn e y s
215
fo r th e ch ild ren [in th e L a r r y P. case] will c o n te n d th e S tate fostered racial
segregation by placin g m o re blacks in m e n tally reta rd e d classes, a n d th a t
th e ch ild ren have b een sc arre d for life b ecause o f it.” A s w ith th e U.S. N ew s
q u o te , above, O liver is p ro b ab ly re p o rtin g th e a tto rn e y s’ c o n te n tio n co r
rectly. A pparently, N B C d id n o t feel th a t th e charge th a t p lacing black
ch ild ren in to E M R classes o n th e basis o f IQ scores w ould “ scar th e m for
life” deserved so m e fo rm o f reb u ttal.
H erita b ility and Group Differences in IQ
N ew spapers
T h is Issue group, co m p risin g “ T h e H erita b ility o f IQ ,” “G ro u p D if
feren ces in IQ ,” a n d “ O th e r Issues C o n c e rn in g H e r rn s te in , Je n se n , o r
S h o ckley” is co n sid ered in 144 N Y T articles, 46 W P articles, an d 12 article s
in th e W SJ. N ew spaper coverage o f these issues m o st fre q u en tly focuses on
th e views a b o u t IQ h eritab ility a n d g ro u p differences o f Je n sen , Shockley,
an d H e rrn s te in (as well as C yril B urt), w ith c o n tra d ic to ry views expressed
by the article au th o r, o th e r experts, o r n o n e x p e rt o th ers. T h ese articles
o ften c o n ta in ac cu satio n s o f c u ltu ral bias in intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests,
a to p ic also w idely discussed in ac c o u n ts o f o th e r test criticism s (as in th e
E d w ard F iske N Y T ed u c a tio n su p p le m e n t artic le discussed above). C harges
o f c u ltu ra l bias are rarely c o n tra d icted , w hile th e claim s o f H e rrn ste in ,
Je n sen , an d Shockley are m o re often th a n n o t p rese n ted in co n ju n c tio n
w ith op p o sin g views. T h ere is also w idespread m isu n d e rsta n d in g a b o u t th e
n a tu re o f heritability, as well as m isre p re sen tatio n o f th e views o f c o n tro
versial p ro -te s tin g scientists.
T able 7.2 lists th e code from each new s source from fo u r key item s in th is
Issue group. T h e first item c o n c e rn s th e h eritab ility o f IQ. A n a rtic le o r
b ro ad c ast receives a “to ta l” for sta te m e n ts like th a t in a D ecem b er 10,
1973, W S J ed ito rial, “ P rofessors H e rrn s te in an d Je n sen b o th su rm ise d th a t
in telligence was passed on genetically,” w here th e re is n o in d ic a tio n th a t
H e rrn s te in o r Je n sen believes th e e n v iro n m e n t also plays a role. Sim ilarly,
w hen critics are said to believe in e n v iro n m e n ta l d e te rm in a tio n , w ith no
m e n tio n o f genetic effects, these views are coded as in sig n ifican t o r n o n e x
iste n t heritability. A cross th e th ree new spapers, 19 p erc en t o f th e sta te
m e n ts a b o u t IQ h eritab ility are cod ed as “to ta l,” 43 p erc en t as “ signifi
c a n t,” an d 25 p erc en t as “ insignificant o r n o n ex iste n t.” A m o n g ex p e rt
survey resp o n d e n ts, 94 p erc en t believe th e re is evid en ce for a significant
w i th in - g r o u p IQ h e r ita b ility , a n d a m o n g th e 214 p r o v id in g w h ite
h eritab ility estim ates, one gives an e stim a te o f 1.0 an d o n e gives an esti
m a te o f 0.
216
The IQ Controversy
TABLE 7.2
Code for Key Items on Heritability and Group Differences in IQ
1. The heritable com ponent of (genetic influence on) intelligence, as measured by
intelligence tests, is:
NUMBER O F ARTICLES OR BROADCASTS
NYT
Total (no mention of environm ental de
term ination, or environm ental deter
m ination ruled out)
Significant (including environm ental
determination)
Insignificant or nonexistent
C annot
be
d e te rm in e d
(o r
undetermined)
WP
W SJ
Newsmags
TV
19
3
1
5
1
37
24
10
3
5
3
18
11
4
4
15
1
0
2
3
2. The effect of genetic differences on the black-white IQ difference is:
mination ruled out)
determination)
Insignificant or nonexistent
C annot
be
d e te rm in e d
(o r
undetermined)
NYT
WP
W SJ
Newsmags
TV
16
17
3
10
4
23
25
6
9
5
3
10
5
4
5
17
1
3
5
3
3. The effect of genetic differences on SES differences in IQ is:
m ination ruled out)
determination)
Insignifcant or nonexistent
C annot
be
d e te rm in e d
(o r
undetermined)
NYT
WP
W SJ
Newsmags
TV
4
2
0
3
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. Intelligence tests are culturally biased (are largely a measure of exposure to whin
middle-class culture).
NYT
Positive
Negative
Both
24
1
5
WP
12
1
7
W SJ
3
0
0
Newsmags
15
1
5
TV
9
0
3
217
S ources for to tal IQ h eritab ility are m o st freq u en tly Shockley, follow ed
by Je n sen , H e rrn s te in , C yril B urt, a n d H an s E ysenck. T h ere are n o o th e r
sources in th e new spapers. Je n sen rep resen ts m o re th a n h a lf o f all sources
for significant heritability. S hockley a n d H e rrn ste in are freq u en tly cited,
b u t o th e r ex p e rts are used as well. N onetheless, becau se Je n sen . Shockley,
an d H e rrn ste in are so fre q u en tly th e sole source(s) for to ta l o r significant
IQ heritability, the view th a t genes are im p o rta n t to in d iv id u al differences
in IQ is m ade to look like a re a ctio n a ry positio n held by o n ly th e m o st
h a r d - lin e te stin g s u p p o rte rs . P h ilo s o p h e r D avid H aw k in s, rev iew in g
Je n s e n ’s book B ia s in M e n ta l T esting in th e Ju ly 6, 1980, N e w York T im e s
B o o k R eview , ex p lain s how “A d ecad e ago A rth u r Je n sen stirred up an old
controversy, an d n u m e ro u s critics b ro u g h t it to the b o ilin g p o in t.” It seem s
th e “ old co n tro v e rsy ” involves J e n se n ’s a rg u m e n t “th a t I.Q . tests yield a
reliable m easure o f m e n tal ab ility ” a n d his claim th a t “ [t]he fact th a t test
scores are m o st sim ila r am o n g id en tical tw ins a n d least sim ila r a m o n g
u n rela ted p ersons . . . s u p p o r ts ] th e old b elief th a t such ab ilities are m ostly
hereditary.”
For insignificant o r n o n e x iste n t heritability, ex p e rt so u rces are m ost
co m m o n , along w ith th e n o n e x p e rt g ro u p labeled “ en v iro n m en ta lists.”
W ith th e possible ex cep tio n o f L eon K am in , we ca n be co n fid e n t th a t n o n e
o f th e ex p e rts cited here actually believes th a t genes play n o role in in d iv id
ual differences in IQ, b u t th e ir p o sitio n s are rep rese n ted as such by new s
p ap ers th a t d ivide th e w orld in to h ere d itaria n s a n d e n v iro n m e n ta lists, a n d
o ften fail to clarify for th e ir readers th a t the a rg u m e n t is over th e degree o f
gen etic influence, n o t its existence o r exclusive co n tro l. B ecause n ew sp ap er
jo u rn a lis ts e ith e r c a n n o t o r d o n o t w an t to u n d e rsta n d th is d istin ctio n ,
read ers will n o t either. W riting on the o p - e d page o f th e D ecem b er 13,
1976, W P , G o d frey H odgson discusses C yril B u rt’s “ assertio n th a t d if
ferences in intelligence w ere th e co n seq u e n ce o f h e re d ita ry ra th e r th a n
e n v iro n m e n ta l factors.”
In response to the d isa g re em en t over heritability, m a n y N Y T a u th o rs
co n c lu d e th a t th e q u estio n c a n n o t be answ ered; th e m o st c o m m o n source
for u n d e te rm in e d IQ h eritab ility in the N Y T is assertio n o r im p lica tio n ,
usually in feature articles. T h ere are also a co n sid erab le n u m b e r o f asser
tio n s o r im p lica tio n s for significant a n d insignifican t h eritab ility in th e
N Y T , b u t m ost o f these co m e from the series o f letters to th e ed ito r follow
ing th e 1969 N Y T M a g a zin e “je n se n ism ” article.
O ne reason Je n se n ’s p o sitio n on IQ h eritab ility is m o re accu rately re
p o rte d th a n S hockley’s (they b o th believe it is significant, b u t S hockley is
m o re often coded as to ta l) is th a t Je n sen provides a h eritab ility estim a te o f
0 .80 in his 1969 H E R article. Even if th e n u m b e rs are n o t given in d escrip
tio n s o f Jen sen's arg u m e n t, an d they rarely are, jo u rn a lis ts are u sually
218
The IQ Controversy
aw are th a t Je n sen does n o t believe th a t e n v iro n m e n t is to tally u n im p o r
ta n t. Ten o f th e n in eteen sources for h eritab ility e stim a tes in th e new s
p ap ers (eleven N Y T , fo u r W P, tw o W SJ) are Je n sen at 0.80. M ost o f th e
rest are C h risto p h e r Je n ck s’ e stim a te o f 0.45 in his 1972 b o o k In eq u a lity.
H e rrn s te in an d S hockley are each cited o n ce as agreeing w ith Jen sen .
E n v iro n m e n ta lists d o n o t give h eritab ility estim ates.
Lee E d so n ’s N e w York T im e s M a g a zin e “je n s e n is m ” artic le is o n e o f th e
m o re accu rate m ed ia ac c o u n ts o f Je n se n ’s po sitio n ; Je n sen h im se lf p raised
th e piece, b u t it suffers from at least tw o e rro rs c o m m o n to such articles.
F irst, th e re is th e assertio n in th e title th a t Je n sen believes th a t “ I.Q . is
largely d e te rm in e d by th e genes.” IQ is en tirely d e te rm in e d by b o th th e
genes a n d th e en v iro n m e n t. Je n sen believes th a t in d iv id u a l differences in
IQ are largely d e te rm in e d by th e genes. S econd, E dson e x tra p o lates from
J e n s e n ’s c o n te n tio n th a t la rg e -sc a le c o m p e n s a to ry e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m s
have n o t w orked to raise IQs su b stan tia lly to th e co n c lu sio n th a t “ [Jensen]
ad d s th a t [abstract reaso n in g a n d p ro b lem -so lv in g ] ab ility (w hich he e
q u a te s w ith th e ability m e asu red by I.Q . tests) is largely in h e rited , a m a tte r
o f genes an d b rain stru ctu re , an d th e re fo re n o a m o u n t o f co m p e n sa to ry
ed u c a tio n o r forced ex p o su re to cu ltu re is going to im p ro v e it su b sta n
tially.” T h irte e n N Y T , th ree W P, an d th ree W S J article s re p o rt th a t a
significant IQ h eritab ility w ould exclude th e possibility o f successful c o m
p e n sa to ry e d u c atio n . In all b u t o n e W S J a n d th ree N Y T articles, th e source
for th is claim is Je n sen . F o u r o f th e N Y T articles d en y th is claim , a n d in all
fo u r th e genials are asserted o r im plied by th e au th o r. T h ese n u m b e rs are
fascin atin g b o th because they so m isre p re sen t Je n se n ’s beliefs (Jen sen u n
d e rsta n d s th a t even a h eritab ility o f 1.0 does n o t ru le o u t th e p o ssibility o f
e n v iro n m e n ta l re m e d ia tio n ) a n d b ecau se th e n ew sp ap ers have p rin te d
such an obviously h e re d ita ria n p o sitio n w ith so little c o n tra d ic to ry evi
d ence. Je n sen a n d S hockley’s b elief in th e in n a te in ferio rity [s/c] o f black s
is also p rin te d , in general, w ith o u t reb u ttal. T h a t all th e co n tra d ic to ry
s ta te m e n ts a b o u t Je n se n ’s su p p o sed po sitio n o n co m p e n sa to ry e d u c atio n
are asserted o r im plied in d icates th a t jo u rn a lis ts m ay find so m e c o n te n
tio n s so ab su rd as to serve as th e ir ow n best criticism .
T h e N Y T co rrec tly re p o rts in seven article s th a t Je n sen d o es n o t believe
c o m p e n sa to ry ed u c a tio n p ro g ra m s have w orked (as o p p o sed to th e p re
vious sta te m e n t th a t they can nev er w ork) to raise IQ. In tw o o f these,
Je n sen is c o n tra d ic te d by o th e r experts. In th re e o th e r N Y T articles, th e
results o f successful co m p e n sa to ry ed u c a tio n p ro g ra m s (in clu d in g th e M il
w aukee P roject) are re p o rte d w ith no co u n terv ailin g ev id en ce from Jen sen
o r an y o n e else.
A rth u r Je n sen w ould n o t be new s, o f course, if he h ad c o n c e rn e d h im s elf
o n ly w ith w ith in -g ro u p IQ heritability. N ew s ac c o u n ts c o n c e rn in g IQ
219
h eritab ility alm o st always deal w ith th e causes o f g ro u p differences, p ri
m arily th e b la c k -w h ite difference, in IQ as well. M ost c o m m o n are d iscu s
sio n s o f th e views o f Je n sen o r Shockley, in w hich th e ir o p in io n s a b o u t
w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility a n d th e possible genetic basis for th e b la c k -w h ite
IQ difference are ru n to g e th er (o r w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility is n o t m e n
tio n e d at all), often a t th e cost o f co n sid erab le co n fu sio n a b o u t th e in d e
p e n d e n ce o f w ith in - a n d b etw e e n -g ro u p differences. M o re o ften th a n n o t,
th e im p re ssio n is given th a t J e n se n ’s o r S hockley’s (o r H e rrn s te in ’s o r B u rt’s
o r E ysenck’s) views a b o u t genetic in v o lv e m e n t in g ro u p differences in IQ
are a d irect resu lt of, o r even th e sam e th in g as, th e ir b elief in su b stan tia l
w ith in - g r o u p h e rita b ility . P ro fe sso r H aw k in s, fo llo w in g h is s ta te m e n t
(q u o te d above) th a t Je n sen believes IQ to be “ m ostly h ered itary ,” c o n
tin u e s, “ Since in th e U n ite d States blacks, on th e average, score less well on
th e tests th a n w hites. P rofessor Je n sen c o n c lu d e d th a t th ese average I.Q.
differences w ere also m a in ly biological in origin.” T h is syllogism is n eith er
valid n o r an a c cu rate d escrip tio n o f Je n se n ’s arg u m e n t. Yet in m o st m ed ia
a c co u n ts, the views th a t th ere is a su b stan tia l w ith in -g ro u p h eritab ility to
IQ a n d th a t genetic factors play a role in g ro u p differences in IQ are in ex
tricab ly linked.
Two m o re exam ples, b o th fro m th e N Y T , d e m o n stra te n o t only th a t th e
w ith in - a n d b e tw e e n -g ro u p issues are lin k ed , b u t also th e k in d o f language
used to describe th e views o f Je n sen , Shockley, a n d th e ir c o -c o n sp ira to rs.
Boyce R e n sb erg er’s N o v em b e r 18, 1976, article on th e B u rt scan d al ex
plains:
Because Dr. Burt’s writings [on w ithin-group heritability] had been a major
buttress of the view that blacks have inherited inferior brains, his discrediting
is regarded as a significant blow to the school of thought espoused by such
persons as A rthur Jensen of the University of California. Richard Herrnstein
of Harvard and William Shockley of Stanford.
In his review o f th e “ im p o rta n t a n d valuable b o o k ” T h e L eg a cy o f M a lth u s
by A llen C hase in th e M arch 13, 1977, N e w York T im e s B o o k R eview ,
h isto ria n G eorge M . F re d ric k so n 1 co n c u rs w ith C h a se’s d escrip tio n o f
those educators and psychologists who use I.Q. tests and rigidly hereditarian
conceptions of “mental retardation” to deny poor children a chance to over
come remediable deficiencies, and of course the new breed of pseudo-scien
tific advocates of white superiority over blacks— namely Professor A rthur R.
Jensen. William Shockley (a Nobel laureate in physics) and their fellow trav
elers.
T h e second item listed in Table 7.2 c o n c e rn s th e source o f th e b la c k -
220
The IQ Controversy
w h ite difference in IQ . T h e co d in g schem e is essen tially th e sam e as in th e
first ite m c o n c e rn in g IQ heritability. N o te th e g eneral sim ilarity to th e
d istrib u tio n o f code for heritability, w ith th e ex cep tio n th a t th e W P has
n early tw ice as m an y cod ed articles o n g ro u p differences in IQ as on
heritability, a n d th ey are m u c h m o re likely to re p o rt th a t th e effects o f
genes o n th e b la c k -w h ite difference are to ta l. In th o se sev en teen W P a r ti
cles, S hockley is te n tim e s th e so u rce fo r to ta l g en e tic d e te rm in a tio n ,
Je n sen n in e tim es, a n d H e rrn s te in once. In th e N Y T , it is S hockley n in e
tim es, Je n se n six, a n d H e rrn s te in once. In th e W S J , S hockley tw ice an d
Je n se n once. T hese re p re se n ta tio n s are w rong, p a rtic u la rly fo r H e rrn s te in ,
w ho h as ta k e n an agnostic p o sitio n o n th e issue. A s w ith heritability, th e
n ew spapers are so m e w h at m o re a c cu rate fo r Je n sen th a n for Shockley; for
a significant genetic effect o n th e b la c k -w h ite difference, Je n sen is th e
source tw en ty -fiv e tim es, Shockley five tim es, a n d H e rrn s te in th ree tim es
across all new spapers. T h e re are only th re e o th e r ex p e rt c itatio n s (o n e o f
these is C yril B urt), desp ite th e fact th a t m o st ex p e rt re sp o n d e n ts in th e
survey agree w ith Je n sen on th is p o in t.
In c o n tra st, th e claim th a t genetic effects d o n o t play a role in th e b la c k w h ite IQ difference is a ttrib u te d m o st o ften in n ew sp ap ers to single ex p erts,
a n d alm o st as often is asserte d o r im p lied by th e artic le au th o r. N o n e x p e rt
o th e rs (“b la ck s,” “critics o f te stin g ”) are also c o m m o n sources. T h e in d e
te rm in a te stan ce is usually a ttrib u te d to experts, a n d o ccasio n ally is as
serted.
C o m p a re d to th e b la c k -w h ite IQ difference, th e su b je ct o f gen etic effects
o n SES differences in IQ h as received very little m e d ia a tte n tio n . T h e
rele v an t code is displayed as th e th ird ite m in T able 7.2. D espite th e sm all
n u m b e rs, th e N Y T d ev o ted a long piece to th e co n c lu sio n s in H e rrn s te in ’s
co n tro v ersial A tla n tic article. T h e A ugust 29, 1971, N Y T , article focuses o n
H e rrn s te in ’s b elief th a t “ in b o rn lack o f ability [is] v irtu a lly th e o n ly facto r
b a rrin g th e way to success in careers a n d in e a rn in g power.” R ich a rd H e r
rn ste in is co d ed as a source fo r to ta l genetic d e te rm in a tio n o n ce each in th e
N Y T a n d W P, a n d o n ce as significant in th e W S J. A rth u r Je n sen is co d ed
as to ta l once in th e W P, a n d as significant tw ice in th e N Y T . C yril B u rt
receives tw o to ta l codes in th e N Y T . T h e view th a t genetic facto rs play a
role in SES differences in IQ is c o n tra d ic te d in o n ly o n e N Y T article.
T h e m o st c o m m o n n o n g en e tic e x p la n a tio n for g ro u p differences in IQ is
c u ltu ra l bias. T h e final item in T able 7.2 c o n c e rn s th e ex istence o f c u ltu ral
b ias in intelligence tests. T h e d a ta here look very m u c h like th o se for
v ario u s fo rm s o f test m isuse show n in T able 7.1. C harges o f c u ltu ral bias are
m o st o ften re p o rte d w ith o u t th e p re se n ta tio n o f o p p o sin g v iew p o in ts.
S ources for positive bias code are fre q u en tly ex p e rts a n d assertio n s o r
im p lica tio n s, b u t th e m o st c o m m o n source across all m e d ia is n o n e x p e rt
221
o th e rs (NA A CP, “critics o f te stin g ,” L a r r y P. plaintiffs, etc.). A rth u r Jen sen
is a fre q u en t source for negative bias code, as are th e L a r r y P. d efen d an ts,
a n d th e N atio n al A cadem y o f Sciences study panel.
T h e overw helm ing su p p o rt for th e existence o f c u ltu ra l bias is n o t in
itself in c o n siste n t w ith th e ex p e rt survey d ata. A fter all, th e vast m a jo rity o f
ex p e rts believe th e re is at least som e racial a n d so c io eco n o m ic bias in
intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests (q u estio n s 14 a n d 15). B ut th ese ex p erts also
believe th a t th is bias is insufficient to in v a lid a te th e tests. In m a n y new s
p ap e r ac co u n ts, o n th e o th e r h a n d , c u ltu ral bias is p resen ted as v itiatin g th e
use o f tests for m in o rity groups. T h e new s m ed ia are n o t to be b la m ed for
re p o rtin g th a t th e N E A a n d N A A C P have called for a m o ra to riu m on
testing, o r th a t c e rta in school system s have d isc o n tin u e d te st use because
th ey believe tests are biased. B ut w hy are th e re n o re p o rts th a t m o st ex p erts
d isagree w ith these decisions? W orse yet are th e o p in io n s b la ta n tly ex
pressed in b o o k review s a n d letters to th e editor. A llan C hase, th e a u th o r o f
T h e L eg a cy o f M a lth u s, review s T h e R a ce B o m b by P aul R. E h rlich a n d S.
S hirley F eld m a n in th e Ju ly 17, 1977, N Y T B o o k R eview . T h e R a ce B o m b
is an exposé o f th e racial bias in h e re n t in intelligence tests. B ut C hase
d o e sn ’t like th e b o o k b ecause it d o e s n ’t go far enou g h : “ W hile th e re are a
n u m b e r o f good b o oks available to help th e lay rea d er u n d e rsta n d th e
c o n tin u in g tragedy o f using th e socially caused low I.Q . te st scores o f th e
d isa d v an tag ed to freeze th e ir social class, ‘T h e R ace B o m b ’ is n o t o n e o f
th em .”
T h e negative c h a ra c te r o f letters to the e d ito r p u b lish ed by th e N Y T after
th e “je n se n ism ” artic le m ay very well be rep rese n tativ e o f th e e x tra o rd in
ary n u m b e r o f letters it received. It m ay also help ex p lain w hy Je n sen is
tre a te d so badly in su b se q u en t N Y T b o o k review s a n d featu re articles. O n
M ay 12, 1971, fo r exam ple, it is re p o rte d th a t “ [t]he th e o ry o f Dr. A rth u r
Je n sen , a C a lifo rn ia psychologist, th a t blacks are in h e re n tly less in tellig en t
th a n w hites [no m e n tio n o f th e en v iro n m e n t], w as attac k ed yesterday by
fo u r professors w ho said it w as causing a ‘grave negative effect’ o n how
b lack ch ild ren are ta u g h t.” O n N o v em b er 2, 1973, th e T im e s re p o rts a
T h an k sg iv in g fast a n n o u n c e d by a g ro u p o f C am b rid g e, M assach u setts
social activists to p ro te st th e “ ‘ra c ist’ teach in g s o f such sociologists [s/c] as
R ic h a rd J. H e rrn s te in . W illiam H . S hockley a n d A rth u r Jen sen .” T h e N Y T
d id n o t in v e n t such stories, b u t it d oes re p o rt th e m , over a n d over again.
W h e n o p in io n s a b o u t th e views o f Je n sen a n d o th e rs are expressed by N Y T
a u th o r s , we get s ta te m e n ts lik e th e fo llo w in g fro m h o u s e re v ie w e r
C h risto p h e r L e h m a n n - H a u p t’s D ec em b e r 17, 1975, review o f tw o b o o k s
critical o f testing. A fter d escrib in g tw o a p p a re n tly u n fa ir in tellig en ce test
q u estio n s, o n e invo lv in g avoiding b ad com pany, L e h m a n n - H a u p t tells us
m o re a b o u t th e tests:
222
The IQ Controversy
Depending on your answers to such questions as these, you get assigned an
Intelligence Quotient. And depending on the level of that I.Q., you get ear
marked and dogtagged; you are also folded, spindled, and mutilated. You go
to the head of the class, or the foot of it, and you stay there. It is predicted
whether you are going to become a gynecologist or a movie usher, and you
often live up to that prediction, because, as it’s been shown, such prophecies
tend to self—fulfill. Last but not least, you are told by such authorities as
A rthur R. Jensen of the University of California, William Shockley of Stan
ford, and Richard J. Herrnstein of Harvard, that the ability to answer these
questions is a function of your genotype (just fancy! it’s good genes that tell
you to avoid the temptation offered by bad company); and, what’s worse, that
black people are 15 percent [ric] poorer at it than white people. That is the
problem, and frankly it seems so ridiculous that it’s a wonder people still
bother to write books about it.
T able 7.2 reveals th a t re p o rts o f c u ltu ral bias te n d s to be so m e w h at m o re
b alan c ed in th e W P th a n in th e N Y T . A n ex a m p le o f th e ex cep tio n pro v in g
th e ru le is th e M a rc h 27, 1977, N Y T M a g a zin e article by T h o m a s Sowell,
“ N ew L ight o n B lack I.Q .,” in w hich Sowell discu sses th e in e v ita b le
c u ltu ra l c o n te x t o f all testin g a n d th e role o f c u ltu ra l d e p riv a tio n in low er
scores o f blacks a n d o th e r m in o ritie s th ro u g h o u t A m eric an history. Sowell
argues th a t th e c u ltu ra l d e p riv a tio n o f m a n y blacks d o es n o t in v a lid a te th e
tests, w hich p red ic t eq u ally as well for stu d e n ts o f all b ack g ro u n d s. In th e
m id d le o f th is article, th e N Y T in clu d es a box by E d w ard F iske in w hich he
d escribes th e role o f testin g in th e eugenics m o v e m en t a n d im m ig ratio n
restric tio n , as well as th e “ ed u c atio n al m a lp ra c tic e ” o f intelligence test
m isuse. T h is is o n e way to achieve balance.
T h e p o p u la rity o f H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , a n d S hockley in press coverage o f
h eritab ility a n d g ro u p differences in IQ sh o u ld be clea r fro m resu lts d is
cussed th u s far. T able 7.3 c o n ta in s fu rth e r in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th ese th ree
scien tists cod ed fro m new s m e d ia acco u n ts. T h e first item , referrin g to
a ttrib u tio n s to H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , o r S hockley o f b lack in ferio rity w ith o u t
an y reference to intelligence, is p a rtic u la rly o n ero u s, as n o n e o f th ese scien
tists speaks o f g eneral inferiority, b u t on ly differences in in te lle ctu al skill
(H e rrn ste in says n o th in g a b o u t racial differences at all), a n d a b elief in th e
im p o rta n c e o f genetic factors is n o t th e sam e as in n a te o r in h e re n t (read
im m u ta b le ) differences. M o st o f th e o th e r ite m s in T able 7.3 are d escrip
tio n s o f H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , a n d Shockley a ttrib u te d p rim a rily to n o n e x
p e rt critics, w ith th e ex cep tio n o f th e e d u c a tio n a l a n d p o litical im p lica tio n s
o f th e ir views, w here assertio n s o r im p lic a tio n s by a u th o rs are also c o m
m o n . T hese last tw o ite m s are best ex p lain ed by ex am p le. A M arch 24,
1973, W P artic le d escribes how th e S o u th e rn R eg io n al C o u n c il “is w o rried
th a t ac ce p ta n ce o f th e new ly p o p u la r genetic th e o ry [o f Jen sen ] co u ld lead
to a n e n d to co m p e n sa to ry ed u c a tio n for blacks a n d th e p o o r,” a n d how
223
TABLE 7.3
Attributions to and Descriptions of Herrnstein, Jensen, and Shockley
1. Blacks are inherently or innately inferior to whites.
NYT
Herrnstein
Jensen
Shockley
2
5
11
WP
1
4
7
WSJ
0
0
Newsmags
0
1
2
2
TV
0
0
5
2. Views have adverse im plicatio n s for ed ucational policy (com pensator;
education).
Herrnstein
Jensen
Shockley
NYT
1
4
WP
0
2
TV
0
Newsmags
1
2
2
0
W SJ
0
1
0
0
0
WP
0
W SJ
0
Newsmags
TV
3
4
0
2
2
6
0
2
2
NYT
WP
WSJ
Newsmags
0
0
10
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
5
NYT
WP
WSJ
Newsmags
TV
2
7
7
0
2
1
1
1
2
2
0
I
6
3
3
3. Views have adverse political implications.
Herrnstein
Jensen
Shockley
NYT
1
5
1
1
4. Favors eugenic policies.
Herrnstein
Jensen
Shockley
TV
1
1
8
5. Is a racist.
Herrnstein
Jensen
Shockley
4
L eo n “ K am in rein fo rced these fears tod ay by suggesting th a t g o v ern m e n t
p o licy m ak ers m ay tu r n to Je n sen an d his allies for statistical ev idence to
ju stify attac k s o n w elfare recipients.”
T h a t S hockley is th e p rin cip al villain in m o st o f th e item s in Table 7.3,
a n d th a t his views o n IQ h eritab ility a n d gro u p differences are so in a c
cu ra tely rep resen ted , is n o d o u b t th e result o f th e in fla m m a to ry n a tu re o f
his sta te m en ts. S hockley has d are d to specu late a b o u t eugenic so lu tio n s to
th e p roblem o f low IQ , an d his insistence on d eb a tin g th e racial issue in
vario u s pu b lic fo ru m s across th e c o u n try engen d ered a great deal o f p ro test
224
The IQ Controversy
a n d ill feeling. A lso, because he is n o t a psychologist, his p ro c la m a tio n s
ta k e o n th e a ir o f q uackery, if n o t o u trig h t racism . F or th is reaso n , every
tim e S hockley’s n a m e is associated w ith th o se o f H e rrn s te in o r Je n sen in
s u p p o rt o f a p a rtic u la r p o sitio n , as it very often is w h en gen etic facto rs are
m e n tio n e d , H e rrn s te in a n d Je n se n ’s cred ib ility is reduced.
N ew s m ed ia coverage o f S hockley’s “ eugenic policies” co n sists p rim a rily
o f tw o item s: his sp e cu la tio n s a b o u t a v o lu n ta ry ste riliz atio n plan for lo w IQ in d iv id u als a n d his s u p p o rt o f R o b e rt G ra h a m ’s h ig h -IQ sp e rm b an k .
T h e n a tio n a l new s m e d ia have been g enerally a c cu rate in re p o rtin g these
events, th o u g h th ey a p p a re n tly need n o t be. A Ju ly 31, 1980, article in th e
A tla n ta C o n stitu tio n by R o g er W ith ersp o o n accu sed S hockley o f “en v i
s io n in g ] th e m a n ip u la tio n o f races to e lim in a te peo p le d ee m e d in tellec
tu ally inferio r,” a n d ex p lain ed how “ [t]he S hockley p ro g ra m was trie d o u t
in G e rm a n y [by N azi scientists] d u rin g W orld W ar II. Shockley sued W ith
ersp o o n a n d th e ow ners o f th e C o n stitu tio n fo r libel, p ro d u c in g a reco rd in g
o f th e in te rv ie w b etw een h im s e lf a n d W ith e rsp o o n in w h ich S h o ck ley
m a d e it clear th a t he w as m erely sp e cu latin g a b o u t eu g en ic p ro g ram s, an d
th a t his p ro p o sal d ea lt on ly w ith th e v o lu n ta ry sterilizatio n o f lo w -IQ
in d iv id u als, n o t a p ro g ra m forced o n m e m b ers o f c e rta in racial o r e th n ic
groups. O n S ep te m b er 14, 1984, a federal ju r y in A tla n ta ru led in favor o f
Shockley, b u t aw arded on ly $ 1 in ac tu al d am ages a n d n o p u n itiv e dam ages.
Mr. W ith ersp o o n was q u o te d as saying th a t he d id n o t “ view it as a loss.”2
B ecause o f th e ir views, H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , a n d S hockley w ere all, a t o n e
tim e o r an o th er, p rev e n ted fro m speaking publicly. S hockley’s was th e m o st
new sw orthy case because he p u sh ed th e issue, in sistin g o n n u m e ro u s p u b
lic debates, a n d forcing th e N A S to co n sid er his p ro p o sal to fu n d research
in to th e causes o f g ro u p differences in IQ. W hen a to p ic o r v iew p o in t is
co n sid ered to o m e n ac in g to even discuss, F irst A m e n d m e n t issues are
raised, a n d th e press are n a tu ra lly interested . N o n e m o re so th a n th e N Y T .
B etw een M ay 2 ,1 9 7 2 , a n d A pril 18, 1975, th e N Y T p u b lish ed n o few er th a n
th ir ty article s, e d ito ria ls, a n d le tte rs to th e e d ito r c o n c e rn in g W illiam
S hock ley ’s a tte m p ts to discuss racial differences in IQ a t P rin c eto n , Yale,
a n d elsew here a n d th e uncivil, an d often v io le n t rea ctio n w ith w hich he
w as m et. A n N Y T ed ito rial o f N o v em b er 23, 1973, is ty p ical o f views
expressed elsew here in th e T im es, a n d in th e W P a n d W SJ:
Dr. Shockley’s theories about intelligence and race are subject to serious
question and have been challenged by many scientists whose backgrounds in
these areas of research are far more impressive than his. None of these facts
can justify what has become a concerted nationwide campaign to silence the
physicist and to deprive those who want to hear him of the opportunity to
listen.
W h en th e issue o f th e p ro p rie ty o f stu d y in g o r discussing g ro u p dif
225
ferences in IQ is re p o rte d , as it is in coverage o f S hockley’s p etitio n s to th e
N A S, th e N Y T is m o re likely to re p o rt v iew points in favor o f freed o m o f
speech a n d research. Ten N Y T articles rep rese n t only th e p ro -re se a rc h side
o f th is d ebate, six articles p rese n t b o th sides, an d only tw o p rese n t ju s t th e
n egative side. M o re surprising, Shockley an d Je n sen are n o t th e m o st c o m
m o n p o sitiv e so u rc e s; o th e r e x p e rts a n d a u th o r a s s e r tio n s a re . T h e
N o v em b e r 18, 1973, N Y T re p o rts th a t a gro u p o f college professors to ld a
c o n fe re n ce at N ew Y ork U n iv ersity th a t th e “ racist d o ctrin es” o f Jen sen ,
H e rrn s te in , a n d S hockley “ lin k in g intelligence to race by h ered ity w ere
u n fa ir for college classro o m s because they are as u n tru e as [the c o n te n tio n
th a t] th e w orld is flat.” Ironically, in light o f o n e -sid e d tre a tm e n t acco rd ed
views a b o u t race a n d IQ by th e N Y T , th e a u th o r o f th e article en d s sar
castically, “ N o n e o f th e p a rtic ip a n ts to o k th e p o sitio n th a t a free ex change
o f ideas sh o u ld be encouraged.”
N e w sm a g a zin e s
T h e forty relev an t new sm agazine articles p rovide coverage o f h eritab ility
a n d g ro u p differences in IQ co m p arab le to th a t fro m th e n ew spapers, as th e
d a ta in Tables 7.2 a n d 7.3 reveal. W hile re p o rtin g o f th ese issues is often
accu rate, th e re are th e sam e te n d en c ies to sim plify th e h eritab ility issue, to
m isre p re sen t H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , a n d Shockley, to p it th e m ag ain st th e rest
o f th e w orld, to confuse w ith in - a n d b etw e e n -g ro u p gen etic effects, a n d to
accept th e n o tio n o f c u ltu ral bias in intelligence tests as ax io m atic. T h e
new sm agazines are less c o n c e rn e d w ith Shockley th a n are th e new spapers
an d , as w ith o th e r Issue groups, are m o re likely to use ex p e rt so u rces an d
less p ro n e to assertio n o r im p lic a tio n th a n are n ew sp ap ers (even w h en
c o m p a re d to new sp ap er featu re articles).
T h e first N e w sw eek article co n c ern in g th e Je n sen affair, d ated M arch 31,
1969, begins, “ Is in te llig en c e in h e rite d o r d e te rm in e d by th e e n v iro n
m e n t? ” T h u s th e false d ic h o to m y is established, a n d Je n sen co m es dow n
clearly o n o n e side: “ Since intelligence is fixed a t b irth anyway, [Jensen]
claim s it is senseless to w aste vast su m s o f m o n e y a n d reso u rces o n such
rem ed ial p ro g ram s as H ead S ta rt w hich assu m e th a t a c h ild ’s in tellect is
m alleab le a n d can be im proved.” N o t all new sm ag azin e re p o rts are so
in a cc u ra te (articles in th e sam e year in U.S. N ew s a n d T im e co rrectly
d escribe Je n se n ’s p o sitio n on h eritab ility ) b u t th ere are five new sm ag azin e
article s in w hich an a ttrib u tio n to to ta l h eritab ility is m ad e. T h ree so u rces
are H e rrn s te in , tw o Je n sen , a n d one Shockley. F o r th e m o re freq u en tly
re p o rte d significant heritability, Je n sen rep resen ts o n e - th ird o f all sources,
a n d th e th ree scientists to g e th e r a c c o u n t for o n e -h a lf. N early all th e o th e r
ex p e rt sources for significant IQ h eritab ility co m e from tw o 1969 U.S.
226
The IQ Controversy
N ew s article s th a t re p rin t excerpts from reb u ttals to Je n sen in th e H a rva rd
E d u ca tio n a l R eview . T hese scientists criticize Je n sen for o v erstatin g his
p o in t, b u t agree th a t genes play a role. M o re c o m m o n a m o n g new s
m agazines is th e p o rtra y al o f Je n sen as a loner. A fter review ing v ario u s
pieces o f evidence c o u n te r to Je n se n ’s claim s, an A pril 11, 1969, T im e
artic le asserts, “ Too little is know n o f th e genes to ju stify positive sta te
m e n ts a b o u t th e ir c o n trib u tio n to th e intelligence o f m a n k in d at large,
m u c h less to a n y d ivision o f m a n k in d .” O verall, th e d istrib u tio n o f o p in
io n s a b o u t IQ h eritab ility in new sm agazine rep o rtin g , p a rtic u la rly th e su b
sta n tia l percen tag e o f “ in sig n ifican t” a ttrib u tio n s, is vastly different from
th a t am o n g ex p e rts surveyed.
J e n se n ’s p o sitio n o n c o m p e n sa to ry ed u c a tio n is as o ften co rrec tly as
in c o rrec tly re p o rte d by new sm agazines. T h re e articles tell us th a t J e n s e n ’s
p o sitio n o n h eritab ility rules o u t th e possibility o f successful co m p en sa to ry
ed u c a tio n , a n d th ree co rrectly re p o rt th a t Je n sen believes re m e d ia tio n is
still possible, alb eit o f a d ifferent so rt th a n has b een trie d in th e past. Je n sen
is th e o nly source used in th ree new sm agazine articles th a t re p o rt th a t
c o m p e n sa to ry ed u c a tio n has n o t w orked to raise IQs. Je n sen is o n ce re b u t
te d by o th e r ex p e rts, a n d th re e in d e p e n d e n t a rtic le s d escrib e th e M il
w aukee P roject an d o th e r successful program s.
All sources for a genetic c o n trib u tio n to th e b la c k -w h ite IQ difference
are Je n sen a n d Shockley (th e n ew sm agazines co rrectly leave H e rrn s te in
o u t o f th e racial debate), w ho are ju s t as likely to be ascrib ed a b elief in to ta l
g enetic d e te rm in a tio n as o n e in w hich th e e n v iro n m e n t also plays a role.
All sources fo r insignificant a n d u n d e te rm in e d genetic effects are ex p erts,
w ith o n e N ew sw eek artic le p ro p erly n o tin g H e rrn s te in ’s b elief th a t th e issue
is unresolved.
C o n fu sio n over th e in d e p e n d e n c e o f w ith in - a n d b e tw e e n -g ro u p gen etic
effects is prev alen t. T h e 1969 N ew sw eek article cited ea rlier a ttrib u te s th e
follow ing to Jen sen : “ T h e reaso n [for th e fifte e n -p o in t b la c k -w h ite IQ
d ifferential,] he argues, is th a t intelligence is an in h e rite d cap acity a n d th a t
since a p rim e ch aracteristic o f races is th a t th ey are ’in b re d ,’ blacks are
likely to rem a in low er in intelligence.” T h e co n c lu sio n follow s fro m th e
p rem ise only if o n e has alread y assu m ed th a t th e cau se o f th e b la c k -w h ite
differential is genetic; if it is en v iro n m e n ta lly cau sed , th e degree o f “ in
b ree d in g ” is irre le v an t.
T h e a u th o r o f a M arch 24, 1980, U.S. N e w s article a tte m p ts to su m
m arize th e b eginnings o f th e m o d e rn IQ controversy:
It was in 1969 that A rthur R. Jensen, a psychologist at the University of
California at Berkeley, declared that heredity is responsible for between 60
and 80 percent of the IQ score. That assertion made “Jensenism” a code
227
word for racism in the minds of many, because it largely discounted the
effects of a child's family background, schooling and economic welfare.
N o t on ly does th is s ta te m e n t d e m o n s tra te a m is u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e
n a tu re o f h eritab ility (the 80 p erc en t refers to differences in IQ score), b u t
th e h eritab ility e stim a te applies o nly w ithin g ro u p s an d d o es n o t by itself
say an y th in g a b o u t th e possible effects o f en v iro n m e n ta l m a n ip u la tio n on
g ro u p differences.
T h e effects o f gen etic differences on SES differences in IQ are m o re
ac cu rately h an d led by new sm agazines, alb eit in only th ree articles, o n e in
each o f th e m agazines. In each case, o p p o sitio n to H e rrn s te in ’s a rg u m e n ts
ab o u t th e possibility o f an IQ caste system are a ttrib u te d to b o th ex p erts
an d o th e rs w ho fear H e rrn s te in ’s thesis m ay be used to “ ratio n aliz e th eo ries
o f racial su p e rio rity ” 3 a n d red u ce “ c o m p e n sa to ry ed u c a tio n , affirm ative
ac tio n , a n d e q u a l-o p p o rtu n ity program s.”4
N ew sm agazine coverage o f c u ltu ra l bias in intelligence tests is even m o re
o n e -s id e d th a n it a p p e a rs in T able 7.2. T h e tw en ty a rtic le s co d ed as
positive fo r c u ltu ra l bias use th ir ty - f o u r d ifferent sources, h a lf ex p erts an d
h a lf others. T h e six articles cod ed as negative for bias use o n ly six sources,
h a lf o f w hich are Je n sen (after th e p u b lic atio n o f B ia s in M e n ta l T esting).
T h e follow ing p ara g ra p h , from a D ec em b e r 19, 1977, T im e article en titled
“ W h a te v e r B ecam e o f ‘G e n iu s e s ’? D o w n p la y in g th e o ld IQ n u m b e rs
ra c k e t,” m anages to disregard ex p e rt s u p p o rt for testing, o v erem p h asize
test score instab ility a n d m isuse, m isrep resen t H e rrn s te in ’s p o sitio n o n IQ
heritability, a n d , in th is co n tex t, m ake c u ltu ra l bias look like a sufficient
e x p la n a tio n for th e b la c k -w h ite IQ difference:
The more tests that are devised, the more educators seem to doubt their
validity. For one thing, individual IQ scores are known to vary considerably.
The IQs of children, for example, can change 17 points to 20 points up or
down before the age of 18, and there is sometimes a marked change from one
year to the next. Many experts even question how much IQ scores have to do
with intelligence. Few support Harvard Psychologist Richard H errnstein’s
position that intelligence is primarily an innate ability, rather than an evolv
ing capacity resulting from the interplay of mental quickness and environ
mental conditioning. It is also possible that such personal traits as drive and
persistence—factors that IQ tests cannot measure—are as important as in
herent reasoning ability. Furthermore, most psychologists agree that the tests
are biased in favor of middle-class children (blacks as a group score 15 points
lower than whites). And there is a persistent danger that an IQ may become a
labeling device.
T im e a n d N e w sw eek, in late 1979 a n d early 1980, each p u b lish ed o n e page articles o n Je n se n ’s b o o k B ia s in M e n ta l Testing. T h ese articles b o th
228
The IQ Controversy
prese n t a fair s u m m a ry o f J e n se n ’s evidence ag ain st c u ltu ra l bias, an d
n e ith e r p resen ts m u c h in th e way o f re fu ta tio n . In stead , th e b o o k ’s im p lica
tio n s are attac k ed . F ro m th e S ep te m b er 24, 1979, T im e we get:
Jensen’s findings clearly have horrendous implications. Indeed, they come
close to saying that blacks are a natural and perm anent underclass— an idea
so shocking that it is likely to spark the most explosive debate yet over race
and IQ.
S o m eo n e a t N ew sw eek m u st have read th e T im e piece. T h e N ew sw eek
article o f J a n u a ry 14, 1980, concludes:
Yet on any count, the implications of Jensen’s book are grim. His work
suggests that attem pts to raise the educational success rate of black young
sters to parity with whites are ultimately doomed to fall short. If black test
results derive overwhelmingly from inherited traits, Jensen’s message is bleak:
blacks should resign themselves to a role of intellectual inferiority. Jensen’s
ideas are so radical that they are bound to renew the debate over race and
genes. An uglier prospect is that they may lend themselves to those who
would chop away at the fundamental principles of equal opportunity.
In light o f th ese an d o th e r q u o ta tio n s fro m n ew sm ag azin e articles, it
sh o u ld co m e as n o su rp rise th a t th e d a ta in T able 7.3 reveal th a t th e
n ew sm agazines have h ad u n k in d th in g s to say a b o u t H e rrn s te in , Je n sen ,
a n d Shockley. N ew sm agazines are less likely th a n th e n ew sp ap ers to m ak e
th e “ in n a te in fe rio rity ” error, b u t m o re likely (co n sid erin g th e relatively
sm all n u m b e r o f articles) to discuss adverse political im p lica tio n s. It is also
clea r th a t th e new sm agazines are m o re c o n c e rn e d w ith Je n sen th a n w ith
Shockley.
L ike th e new spapers, th e new sm agazines covered m u c h o f th e p ro test
th a t m e t th,ese th re e scientists. Seven new sm ag azin e articles describ e u n
civil rea ctio n s to Je n sen , fo u r relate S hockley’s p ro b lem s (far less, p ro p o r
tio n a lly , th a n th e N Y T , b u t c o n s is te n t w ith c o v e ra g e in th e o th e r
n e w sp a p e rs), a n d o n e m e n tio n s H e r r n s te i n ’s d iffic u ltie s . T h e n e w s
m agazines are also in c lin e d to give positive coverage to th e n o tio n th a t
racial differences in IQ sh o u ld be research ed a n d discussed. N in e new s
m ag azin e articles p rese n t th e positive side o f th is d eb ate, b u t o n ly th ree
also p rese n t reb u ttal.
O n e o f th e article s p rese n tin g b o th sides o f th e d eb a te over research is a
M ay 10, 1971, N ew sw eek piece d ealing w ith o n e o f S h o ck ley ’s p e titio n s to
th e N A S. T h e co n c lu sio n rea ch ed by th e au th o r, afte r d escrib in g S h o ck ley ’s
p re se n ta tio n a n d rea ctio n s fro m o th e r N A S m em b ers, is:
On balance, it seems likely that Shockley is over his head in certain areas. But
229
he seems a conscientious and well-intentioned man, whatever the use lesswell-disposed persons may make of his hypotheses. Thus a reasonable judg
ment would seem to be that even if his arguments tend to make qualified
sociologists, psychologists and geneticists wince, they dem and organized at
tention that the academy currently seems willing to give them.
O n D ecem b er 17, 1973, N ew sw eek ran a n o th e r article a b o u t Shockley, th is
tim e describ in g his difficulties in m a k in g h im self h ea rd a t P rin c eto n a n d
elsew here. In th e only charge o f racism against H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , or
S hockley asserted by an article a u th o r in a new sm ag azin e, R ich a rd B oeth
is less well in c lin e d to w ards S hockley th a n his colleague o f tw o years earlier,
b u t rem ain s, n onetheless, a firm believer in free speech:
Anyone who advances the notion of inheritable racial differences in IQ,
according to the wilder-eyed environmentalists, is by definition a racist and
should be shouted down for this reason.. . . As it happens, an easy case can be
made that Shockley is a racist (though how this disqualifies him from the
guarantees of the First Amendment is a question for academics to ponder at
their leisure). [Emphasis in the original]
T h e sto ry o f television netw o rk coverage o f h eritab ility a n d g ro u p d if
ferences in IQ is p rin cip ally the story o f CBS. T h e first television b ro ad cast
in o u r sam p le is a S ep te m b er 8, 1971, C B S E ven in g N ew s c o m m e n ta ry by
E ric S evareid c o n c e rn in g th e rea ctio n to W illiam S hockley by so m e psy
ch o lo g ists at th e A m e ric a n P sychological A sso ciatio n c o n v e n tio n . T h e
o th e r tw o netw orks d o n o t provide any coverage o f IQ -re la te d issues u n til
1977, th u s m issing en tirely th e early firew orks. O f tw e n ty -six n etw o rk
telev ision b ro ad c asts c o n c e rn in g h eritab ility a n d g ro u p differences, only
eight co m e from A BC an d N BC: tw o evening new s pieces by each netw ork
o n th e L a rry P. case, o n e A BC a n d tw o N BC stories on R o b e rt G ra h a m ’s
h ig h -IQ sp e rm b a n k (an d S hockley’s su p p o rt thereof), an d an interview
w ith A rth u r Je n sen o n N B C 's P rim e T im e S a tu rd a y follow ing th e p u b lic a
tio n o f B ia s in M e n ta l Testing. CBS, o n th e o th e r h an d , in a d d itio n to
sim ila r coverage o f L a r r y P. a n d R o b e rt G ra h a m , b ro ad c ast th ree c o m
m e n tarie s co n c ern in g Je n sen a n d Shockley, tw o 60 M in u te s pieces related
to th e rea ctio n to Shockley, o n e on th e C yril B u rt affair, th e h o u r-lo n g
special T he IQ M y th , a n d a host o f o th e r related new s segm ents. T h e
c o m m e n ts th a t follow, th erefo re, refer p rim a rily to CBS, except w here
n o ted.
T aken together, th e television netw orks have n o t re p o rte d m u ch a b o u t
IQ h eritab ility (item 1, Table 7.2), b u t th e relev an t b ro ad c asts are co n siste n t
230
The IQ Controversy
w ith th o s e fro m o th e r n e w s s o u rc e s . T h e so le a t t r i b u t i o n to to ta l
h eritab ility com es fro m M ik e W allace’s sta te m e n t in th e J u n e 26, 1977, 60
M in u te s seg m en t o n C yril B u rt, describ in g “ B u rt’s thesis th a t heredity, n o t
e n v iro n m e n t, d e te rm in e s a p e rso n ’s I.Q .” S ig n ifica n t h e rita b ility is a t
trib u te d fo u r tim es to Je n sen , tw ice to H e rrn s te in , a n d o n ce to a n o n e x p e rt
o th e r; n o o th e r e x p e rt s u p p o r t is given. S o u rces fo r u n d e te rm in e d IQ
h eritab ility are all experts, as are tho se for insig n ifican t h eritab ility (tw ice
L eo n K am in).
T h e n th e re is T h e IQ M y th . A fter asking H a rv a rd psychologist Je ro m e
K ag an if IQ tests m easu re “ in h e rited ability,” a n d receiving a negative
reply, D an R a th e r co n clu d es “ IQ , in o th e r w ords, is m a in ly a ta le n t for
school w ork, an ability th a t can be developed, especially if you sta rt a t an
early en o u g h age. T h a t’s w h at m o st psychologists seem to be tellin g us.”
Later, R a th e r hopelessly co nfuses th e w ith in - a n d b etw e e n -g ro u p issues in
describ in g Je n se n ’s a rg u m e n t, a n d ex p e rt response:
It is a fact, as Jensen says, that black children, on the average, score 15 points
lower than whites in IQ. As we’ve seen, it is not a fact that a lower IQ means
less intelligence, and there is even less evidence to show that intelligence is
80% inherited. Yet, that percentage is the very basis of Jensen’s argument
[about genetic effects on the black-white IQ differential]. The same evidence
that Jensen uses has been studied by psychologist Leon Kamin. Like most of
his colleagues, he finds the conclusions unsound.
W h a t “ co n c lu sio n s” is R a th e r ta lk in g ab o u t? T h e possible genetic effect on
racial differences in IQ , o r su b sta n tia l w ith in -g ro u p IQ h eritab ility ? R a th e r
a p p a re n tly sees th e m as th e sam e th in g , for he n ex t tu rn s to L eon K a m in
for his ex p la n a tio n o f J e n s e n ’s “ev id en ce” (p arap h rase d by R a th e r an d
nev er ex p lain e d by Je n se n )— th a t high IQ ru n s in fam ilies. K a m in says th a t
th is in fo rm a tio n
certainly does not in any sense prove his interpretation . .. when one finds
that a child resembles his parents, one doesn’t know whether that re
semblance is due to the fact that he’s inherited genes from the parents or due
to the fact that he has learned an enormous am ount from the parents.”
K a m in clearly is ta lk in g h ere a b o u t w ith in -g ro u p heritability. Yet R a th e r’s
follow ing sta te m e n t is, “ It isn ’t so m e n a tu ra l lack o f intelligence, b u t a
c u ltu ra l h a n d ic a p th a t h o ld s p o o r ch ild ren back.” C o u p led w ith th e ea rlier
sta te m e n t th a t “ m o st psychologists seem to be tellin g us” th a t IQ is a
d eveloped ability, th e view er is left to co n c lu d e th a t “ m o st psychologists”
a n d “ m o st o f [K a m in ’s] colleagues” d o n o t believe eith er in su b stan tia l
231
w ith in -g ro u p IQ h eritab ility or in genetic effects o n gro u p differences. Both
a ttrib u tio n s are in c o rrec t, as o u r ex p e rt survey reveals.
In response to these an d sim ila r sta te m e n ts in T h e IQ M y th , several
p ro m in e n t p sy c h o m etric ia n s a n d o th e r psychologists in terested in in te l
ligence testing w rote to CBS to p ro test th e n etw o rk ’s in a cc u ra te tre a tm e n t
o f ex p e rt o p in io n on IQ heritability. A m ong th e m w as R ich a rd H errn stein .
H is Ju ly 3, 1975. le tte r to CBS includes a citatio n from th e E ncyclopaedia
B ritannica, placing th e “ usually accepted figures” for IQ h eritab ility b e
tw een 0.75 a n d 0.80. in o rd er to d e m o n stra te how easy it w ould have been
for researchers at CBS N ew s to o b ta in a m o re accu rate su m m a ry o f th e
em p irica l literatu re. A n A ugust 11 response from D avid Fuchs, v ic e -p re si
d e n t o f p ublic affairs b ro ad c asts for CBS N ew s, argues th a t T h e IQ M y th is
a fair ap p raisal o f ex p e rt o p in io n on IQ heritability, an d ex p lain s th a t “ we
d o n o t believe th a t th e fact th e b ro ad c ast resisted em b ra cin g th e g en e tic sis-a ll th e o ry c o n stitu te s a reason for dism issing it as ‘fra u d u le n t’.” By his
ow n w ords. F uchs has c o n d e m n e d CBS N ew s’ u n d e rsta n d in g o f ex p e rt
o p in io n .
L ike th e o th e r new s m edia, th e television netw ork s are ju s t as likely to
a ttrib u te to Je n sen a n d S hockley th e g e n e tic s-is-a ll th e o ry o f th e b la c k w h ite IQ differential (to tal) as th ey are to get it righ t (sig n ific an t-ite m 3,
T able 7.2). Sim ilarly, Jen sen , Shockley, a n d B u rt are th e o n ly sources for
th ese o p in io n s: all o th e r ex p e rt sources are in s u p p o rt o f in sig n ifican t or
u n d e te rm in e d genetic effects. (N o n g en etic ex p la n a tio n s like cu ltu ral d e
p riv atio n an d segregated schools are six tim es a ttrib u te d to o th e r ex p erts,
a n d tw ice asserted o r im p lied .) T h e 60 M in u te s segm en t o n C yril B u rt en d s
w ith th e follow ing q u o ta tio n from psychologist K en n e th C lark reg ard in g
J e n s e n ’s genetic hypothesis: “ I t’s a political ju d g m e n t, it’s an ideological
ju d g m e n t, it’s ch a u v in ism , b u t it’s n o t science.”
M u c h o f th e telev ision coverage o f c u ltu ra l bias in in telligence tests
ap p e ars in rep o rts o f th e L a r r y P. case. T h e n o rm in such coverage is to
in terv iew o r cite p la in tiff a tto rn e y s a n d ex p e rt w itnesses w ho claim th a t th e
in telligence tests used for E M R p la ce m en t in C a lifo rn ia are biased ag ain st
blacks. In n o n e o f these re p o rts is an y o n e from th e defense show n o r cited
d en y in g th is charge. In fact, th e only negative source for c u ltu ral bias in
telev ision coverage is A rth u r Jen sen . M ost p ro m in e n t a m o n g th ese is an
N B C N ew s P rim e T im e S a tu rd a y segm ent o f Ja n u a ry 12, 1980, d ev o ted to
B ia s in M e n ta l Testing. Je n sen , w ho is said to have “cau sed a sen satio n by
saying he h ad p ro o f th a t b lack people are less in tellig en t th a n w h ite p e o
p le ,” is in terview ed at length an d is allow ed a reaso n ab le p re se n ta tio n o f his
ev id en ce on c u ltu ra l bias. O p p o sin g views are given by R o b e rt W illiam s
(d ev eloper o f th e B IT C H test) an d by Je ro m e D o p p elt o f th e Psychological
C o rp o ra tio n , a m a jo r p u b lish er o f tests. A fter Dr. D o p p elt expresses his
232
The IQ Controversy
b elief th a t it is n o t possible for any test to be “ free o f an y c u ltu ral lo a d in g ,”
re p o rte r Jo h n P alm er explains, “ But, even th o u g h a test p u b lish er th in k s a
test will always show som e cu ltu ral bias, A rth u r Je n sen does not.” P alm er
has m isrep resen ted D o p p e lt’s o p in io n , a n d fu rth e r iso lated Jen sen , by c o n
fusing cu ltu ral loading w ith cu ltu ral bias.
T h e sam e e rro r is m ade, m o re egregiously, by D an R a th e r in T h e IQ
M y th :
For both forms [individually- and group-administered], the test makers tell
us, the questions are based on the average experience of the average American
child—in school and outside—“average” meaning “ middle class.” And it’s
economic class that marks the main dividing line on IQ scores. Middle class
children tend to do well, in general, whatever their ethnic or racial back
ground. They are the group the tests are geared to. Lower class children—
blacks, chicanos and whites—all tend to do poorly. The test are slanted
against their social and cultural background.
P sy ch o m e trician Lloyd H u m p h re y s w rote to R a th e r o n M ay 2, 1975, p ro
te stin g th is sta te m e n t, a n d in c lu d in g d o c u m e n ta tio n th a t social class ac
c o u n ts for a very sm all p ro p o rtio n o f IQ v aria tio n , m o st o f th e v ariatio n
being w ith in class an d racial a n d eth n ic group. R a th e r’s reply is d a te d Ju n e
2:
There’s no desire on my part to engage in a running debate with you. The
broadcast speaks for itself. It is not, however, “demonstrably false” that I.Q.
tests measure essentially middle class learning. Many who write the tests say
that it is what they measure and that’s good enough for me. (emphasis in the
original)
First, it is “d e m o n stra b ly false” th a t IQ tests m easu re essentially m id d le
class learn in g , as H u m p h rey s’ evidence shows. S econd, it is u n lik ely th a t
an y test m aker, w hile p ro b ab ly a d m ittin g his tests are cu ltu re d e p e n d e n t,
w ould say th a t so m e th in g he has labeled a test o f in tellig en ce “ m easu res
essentially m id d le class learn in g .” T h ird , it is iro n ic th a t an investigative
re p o rte r g ath erin g in fo rm a tio n for a new s re p o rt th a t trash es in tellig en ce
tests sh o u ld be w illing to ta k e test m a k ers a t th e ir w ord a b o u t an y th in g .
W hy look fu rth e r w hen y o u ’ve alread y received th e an sw er y o u ’re lo o k in g
for?
If IQ tests are essentially a m easu re o f ec o n o m ic class, it sh o u ld n o t be
su rp risin g th a t R a th e r describes W illiam S hockley as th e “ lead in g p o p u la rizer o f th e idea th a t intelligence is basically a m a tte r o f race, a n old
th e o ry originally revived by psychologist A rth u r Je n sen o f th e U n iv ersity
o f C alifo rn ia.” We see in T able 7.3 th a t H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , an d S hockley
are tre a te d by th e television netw orks m o re o r less as th ey are by th e o th e r
233
new s m edia. Five tim es S hockley is said to believe in th e in h e re n t in
ferio rity o f blacks, yet his right to display his racism is d efen d ed . T h e Eric
Sevareid co m m en tary , an d tw o 60 M in u te s segm en ts in p articu lar, w hile
u n fav orable to Shockley, are even less sy m p a th e tic to th o se w ho w ould n o t
let him be heard. (A to ta l o f six television bro ad casts cover th e uncivil
rea ctio n to H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , o r Shockley.)
O n Ju ly 27, 1973, a “ S p e c tru m ” c o m m e n ta ry o n th e C B S M o rn in g N ew s
by M. S tan to n E vans decries th e h a ra ssm e n t a n d charges o f racism to
w hich H e rrn ste in a n d Je n sen have been subjected. O n A ugust 13, Ethel
Payne replies in a n o th e r “ S p e c tru m ” segm ent. She brings up th e n a m e o f
Shockley, w ho “c o n te n d s th a t blacks are genetically in ferio r to w h ites,” an d
asks:
What becomes of the mass of humanity which does not fit into the Herrnstein-Jensen-Shockley specification of the hereditarily com petent human
beings? Instead of using that dread word “genocide,” I’ll ask what selecting
out process they propose to produce the master race? Does it include mass
sterilization, psychosurgery and rigid police controls?
If th e references to fascism a n d N azism w eren ’t en o u g h , Ms. Payne m ak es
it clear w here these scientists fit in h er political view o f th e w orld: “ Let
Shockley, H e rrn ste in an d Je n sen do a study o f th e genes o f th e leaders w ho
are responsible for m aking w ar an d ex p lo itin g th e p o o r for th e co n v en ien ce
o f th e rich.”
In th e w orld as described by th e new s m edia, Je n sen , Shockley, an d
H e rrn s te in (and occasionally B u rt an d E ysenck) sta n d v irtu ally alo n e as
d efe n d ers o f m ean in g fu l intelligence tests, su b stan tia l IQ heritability, an d
gen etic d e te rm in a n ts o f g ro u p differences in IQ. M any m e m b ers o f th e
general p ublic an d th e professional c o m m u n ity have severely criticized th e
views o f these scientists. T he new s m edia have re p o rte d th ese criticism s, as
th ey have the views o f Je n sen , Shockley, an d H e rrn ste in . A t tim es jo u r
nalists have allow ed them selves to be influenced by th e o ften v itrio lic la n
guage used by m a n y o f th e critics o f testing, an d have m isrep resen ted
Je n sen et al. A t tim es, they have even forgotten th e ir resp o n sib ility to
rem a in objective a n d jo in e d th e critics. T hese m istakes are m o re the ex cep
tio n th a n the rule, however. T h e m o st w idespread an d grievous e rro r c o m
m itted by the new s m ed ia in th e ir rep o rtin g o f h eritab ility an d g ro u p
differences in IQ is in using ex p e rt sources o th e r th a n H e rrn ste in , Jen sen ,
a n d S hockley only to c o n tra d ic t th e ir views, th u s leaving read ers a n d view
ers w ith th e very clear im p ressio n th a t ex p e rt o p in io n is d ecid ed ly e n v iro n
m en talist an d a n ti-te stin g . O u r survey o f ex p e rts d e m o n stra te s th a t th is is
n o t th e case. T h e new s m ed ia have allow ed them selv es to be in flu en ced by
234
The IQ Controversy
a m in o rity o f vocal psychologists an d ed u c ato rs w hose radical view s are
c o n siste n t w ith a set o f jo u rn a lis tic values em p h asizin g h u m a n e q u ip o ten tia lity a n d eq u a lity o f o u tc o m e.
The S A T
C o n te n t-a n a ly sis code for key item s related to th e SAT is show n in Table
7.4. N ew s m e d ia co v erag e o f SAT issues sh a re s c e r ta in fe a tu re s w ith
coverage o f intelligence testing, n o tab ly the te n d en c y to o n e -sid e d re p o rt
ing o f criticism s o f testin g (e.g., item s 2 a n d 6 in Table 7.4) an d th e use o f a
very sm all n u m b e r o f ex p e rt sources in defense o f tests. B ut th e re are tw o
very im p o rta n t differences. F irst, th e SAT has a b u ilt-in set o f ex p e rt
defenders, the E d u ca tio n a l T esting Service (ETS), w h o d ev elo p a n d a d m in
ister th e test, a n d th e College E n tran c e E x a m in a tio n B o ard (CEEB), for
w hom th is w ork is do n e. T hese sources are easy to id en tify a n d locate, th ey
are p u b lic o rg an iz atio n s w ith a long h isto ry o f d ealin g w ith th e press, a n d
th ey can be c o u n te d on to be alm o st u n eq u iv o ca lly po sitiv e a b o u t th e SAT.
It is n o w o n d er these o rg an iz atio n s o r th e ir sp o k esm en are th e m o st c o m
m o n so u rc e s fo r p o sitiv e s ta te m e n ts a b o u t th e SAT a m o n g all new s
sources. T h is state o f affairs has c e rta in conseq u en ces, fo rem o st am o n g
w hich is th a t coverage o f th e SAT te n d s to be m o re b alan ced , a n d even
positive, th a n is coverage o f intelligence tests (e.g., item s 1, 3, 4, a n d 5 in
T able 7.4). H ow ever, b ec au se th e d e fe n d e rs o f th e SAT a re a lm o st ex
clusively th e ETS an d C EEB , th e re is th e im p ressio n th a t these o rg an iz a
tio n s are engaged in an u n su p p o rte d b attle again st th e ir critics, ju s t as was
th e case w ith H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , an d Shockley. F u rth er, as a resu lt o f th e
perceived im p o rta n c e o f th e SAT in d e te rm in in g college ad m issio n s, an d
th e m o n o lith ic n a tu re o f th e ETS a n d C EEB , those w ho challenge th e SAT
are often p o rtra y ed as D avid against th e E T S /C E E B G o liath .
A se c o n d im p o r ta n t d is tin c tio n b etw e en SAT a n d in te llig e n c e te st
coverage is th a t th e SAT is ta k en seriously by th e new s m e d ia as a b a ro m e
te r o f th e q u ality o f A m eric an e d u c atio n . T h e m o st fre q u en tly re p o rte d
to p ic in articles a n d b ro ad c asts related to th e SAT is th e n in e tee n year
d eclin e a n d su b se q u en t leveling off o f average SAT scores. T h ese new s
stories w ere n o t in te n d ed to d e m o n stra te th a t th e SAT is g ettin g less ac c u
rate; inevitably, such rep o rts discuss th e chan g in g n a tu re o f o u r schools a n d
stu d e n ts . T h is im p lic it le g itim iz a tio n c o n trib u te s sig n ific a n tly to th e
positive coverage acco rd ed th e SAT.
N ew spapers
T h ere are n in e ty -se v e n N Y T articles o n S A T -related issues, sev en ty -fiv e
IFF’articles, an d eight articles in th e W SJ. T h e N Y T a n d W P are p red o m i-
235
TABLE 7.4
Code for Key SAT Items
1. T h e SAT is a sufficiently valid p re d ic to r o f success in college to justify its c o n
tin u e d use.
Positive
Negative
Both
NYT
11
4
3
YVP
WSJ
Newsmags
10
4
5
0
0
2
3
0
1
TV
1
0
2
2. The SAT is given too much weight in admissions decisions (exert inordinate
control over test takers' lives).
Positive
Negative
Both
NYT
WP
WSJ
Newsmags
TV
10
0
0
12
0
2
1
0
4
0
1
1
2
0
0
3. The SAT is not significantly different from an achievement test (measure prepa
ration, not potential).
Positive
Negative
Both
NYT
WP
WSJ
3
12
2
4
2
2
0
0
0
Newsmags
1
TV
2
0
0
1
1
4. SAT prep courses (and software) significantly increase SAT scores.
Positive
Negative
Both
NYT
WP
WSJ
Newsmags
TV
5
0
15
2
0
13
0
0
3
0
0
3
2
0
2
5. The effect of truth-in-testing legislation on test: quality (validity or reliability) will
be:
NYT
Positive
Negative
Insignificant
WP
WSJ
Newsmags
TV
3
3
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
0
0
NYT
WP
W SJ
Newsmags
TV
9
0
3
11
2
3
0
0
3
7
0
2
2
6
5
1
6. The SAT is culturally biased.
Positive
Negative
Both
1
0
236
T he IQ Controversy
n an tly positive a b o u t SAT validity (item 1, Table 7.4), in ag reem en t w ith 90
p erc en t o f ex p e rt re sp o n d e n ts (q u estio n 24). Positive sou rces are over
w helm ingly ETS, C EEB , o r so m eo n e associated w ith th e m . T h e m o st c o m
m o n negative so urce is R alp h N a d e r o r T h e R eig n o f E T S , b u t m a n y o th e r
critics appear, in c lu d in g N EA spokesm en.
T h ere is a tim e tre n d in th e coverage o f SAT issues by th e n ew spapers, as
well as the o th e r new s sources. P rio r to 1980 th e n ew sp ap ers seem ed, at
least im plicitly, to su p p o rt th e SAT as a useful d e c isio n -m a k in g tool. C rit
icism o f th e SAT reach ed its peak at th e begin n in g o f th is d ecade, a n d th e
new spapers, in a d d itio n to re p o rtin g these critiq u es, a p p e a r to have been
w on over by th e m . N early all positive assertio n s a n d im p lica tio n s in th e
N Y T an d W P c o n c e rn in g SAT validity a p p e a r before 1980, w hile m o st
negative assertio n s an d im p lica tio n s a p p e a r d u rin g o r after th a t year. N Y T
b o o k review er C h risto p h e r L e h m a n n -H a u p t, w hose low o p in io n o f in te l
ligence tests is a p p a re n t in a p rev io u s q u o ta tio n , n o n eth eless begins his
F eb ru ary 3, 1981, b o o k review w ith a positive a ttitu d e to w ard th e SAT. In
response to charges in T he T esting Trap by A n d rew J. S tren io th a t a d m is
sions a n d o th e r tests are biased, stigm atizing, a n d co n tro lled by an in se n
sitiv e “ P s y c h o m e tric -A c a d e m ic C o m p le x ,” L e h m a n n - E I a u p t re p o rts:
“ M y first in c lin a tio n was to say, N o, here is an issue I refuse to get w orked
u p over. T h e schools have to go o n so m e th in g in d ecid in g w h o is to qu alify
an d w ho is n o t to.” B ut, he co n tin u es, “ Mr. S tren io . . . slow ly b u t steadily
g rin d s such silly o b jectio n s to pow der,” leadin g th e review er to co n c lu d e
th a t “ [t]he sta n d ard iz ed test m easu res n o th in g m o re th a n th e ability to tak e
tests.”
As w ith intelligence tests, n ew spaper coverage o f criticism s o f th e SAT is
ex trem ely o n e -sid e d . “ T h e SAT m easures p rim a rily te s t-ta k in g skills,”
“ SAT scores reflect p rim a rily SES” (a favorite o f th e N a irn /N a d e r rep o rt),
a n d “ SAT q u estio n s are often poorly co nceived o r am b ig u o u s” are each
given p re d o m in a n tly positive code in a p p ro x im ate ly h a lf a d o zen articles
in b o th the N Y T a n d WP. Positive sources for th ese criticism s are varied,
co m in g so m e tim es from ex p erts, so m e tim es from n o n e x p e rt o th ers, an d
often are stated o r im plied, usually in articles p u b lish ed after 1979. (T h e
N o v em b er 20, 1983, W P “ E d u ca tio n a l R eview ” is an issue d ev o ted to “ T h e
L im its o f T esting,” an d in clu d es as its on ly article o n th e SAT a piece by
D avid O w en, fu tu re a u th o r o f N o n e o f th e Above: T h e M y th o f S ch o la stic
A p titu d e.) T h e few negative sources are p rim a rily ETS, C E E B , o r so m eo n e
associated w ith them .
Item 2 in T able 7.4 gives a n o th e r ex a m p le o f th e lo p sid ed re p o rtin g o f
te stin g critiques. H ere th e criticism th a t th e SAT is to o im p o rta n t in test
ta k ers’ lives is bolstered by th e u b iq u ito u sn e ss o f th e SAT, an d th e E T S /
C EE B n ea r m o n o p o ly o n ad m issio n s testing. T h e new s m ed ia will always
237
side w ith w hat they perceive as th e cause o f in d iv id u al lib erty ag ain st
u n th in k in g c o rp o ra te co n tro l. A n article in th e A ugust 7, 1977, W P M a g a
z in e by Lisa Berger is en title d “ Playing th e N u m b ers: H ow to Beat th e SAT
a n d S core Big.” T h e title page illu stratio n show s fo u r test takers, w ith
p en cils as b alan c in g rods, w alking a tig h tro p e. T h ey are dw arfed by a
grow ling K ing K o n g -sized gorilla w ho is ap p ly in g his finger to th e rope in
an effort to to p p le th e stu d en ts. T h e a ttitu d e expressed by th is d raw ing is
precisely th a t o f th e o ft-re p o rte d N a irn /N a d e r arg u m e n t in T h e R eig n o f
E T S : T h e C orporation T hat M a k e s Up M in d s.
T h e th ird item in Table 7.4 co n c ern s th e a p titu d e -a c h ie v e m e n t d istin c
tio n , a n d is an in d ic a tio n th a t coverage by the N Y T a n d W P is n o t always
sim ilar; th e N Y T is m u c h m o re likely to p rin t sta te m e n ts in su p p o rt o f th e
idea th a t th e SAT is so m e th in g o th e r th a n an ach ie v em e n t test. S om e o f th e
S A T -a s -a c h ie v e m e n t-te s t code c o m es fro m coverage o f SAT co a ch in g
effects, w here th e E TS is usually on h an d to d en y th a t co a ch in g w orks an d
th a t co ach in g effects im p ly th a t th e SAT is n o t a m easu re o f ap titu d e . Som e
d iscu ssion com es from coverage o f SAT critics like N a irn et al., an d som e
fro m tr e a tm e n t o f th e Je n c k s a n d C ro u se 1982 P u b lic In tere st article ,
w h ere th e y argue, a m o n g o th e r things, th a t th e SAT essen tially is an
a c h ie v em e n t test. (T h e critics are a m o re fre q u en t to p ic o f d iscussion in th e
W P, w hile the N Y T c o n c e n tra te s on coaching.) T h e large a m o u n t o f nega
tive code from th e N Y T com es often from th e ETS a n d C E E B . p articu la rly
in relatio n to coaching, b u t m an y o f th e sources for negative code are
im p lica tio n s o r assertio n s, as in an A ugust 24. 1977, article d escrib in g th e
results o f th e CEEB panel a p p o in te d to study SAT score declin e. As b ac k
g ro u n d , E dw ard B. Fiske ex p lain s th a t the SAT “ is ta k en every year by
m o re th a n a m illion c o lle g e -b o u n d H igh S chool [s/V] ju n io rs a n d sen io rs as
a m eans o f ev alu atin g th e ir ac ad e m ic prom ise.” In articles like this, w here
n o c o n tra d ic to ry evidence is given, the T im e s seem s, at least im plicitly, to
s u p p o r t th e n o tio n th a t th e SAT is so m e th in g o th e r th a n m e re ly an
ac h ie v em e n t test. A gain, however, these sta te m e n ts are m ad e p rim a rily in
th e 1970s.
T h e a p titu d e -a c h ie v e m e n t d istin ctio n , discussed in C h a p te r 2, is m o st
co n fu sin g in rela tio n to th e SAT. T h e ETS an d CEEB are criticized for
calling th e SAT an a p titu d e test, a n d th u s leading test ta k ers to believe th a t
th e test m easures so m e in n a te ability. T h e ETS an d C E E B reply th a t th e ir
test does n o t m easu re in n a te ability, b u t n eith er is it a m easu re o f ex p o su re
to som e specific course m aterial; it is a m e asu re o f th o se skills a n d abilities
necessary to d o college w ork, w hich are ac q u ired over th e co u rse o f a
life tim e’s e d u c atio n . T h e m ak ers an d sp onsors o f th e SAT d o n o t believe
th a t scores can be significantly im proved th ro u g h s h o r t- te r m co ach in g
p ro g ram s. T hese are subtle d istin ctio n s, m o re sub tle th a n th e typical g en et
238
The IQ Controversy
ic s -o r - e n v ir o n m e n t new s m e d ia ac co u n t. As a result, we get sta te m en ts
like th e follow ing from F red H ech in g er in th e O cto b e r 5, 1982, N Y T :
[High schools] no longer believe [the SAT] primarily measures inborn ap
titude; they have been persuaded, after years of debate, that the tests results
reflect two basic ingredients: verbal and mathematical skills the student has
learned, and reasoning ability, including the ability to make intelligent
guesses.
F ro m w here does reaso n in g ability com e? Is it le arn ed , o r an “ in b o rn
a p titu d e ”? A ccording to H ech in g er it is e ith e r o n e o r th e other, b u t n o t
b oth.
T h e only o th e r reference in th e new s m e d ia to a n y th in g like h eritab ility
o f SAT scores ap p e ars in several articles a n d b ro ad c asts in v ario u s new s
sources c o n c e rn in g th e co n sisten tly higher average scores ach iev ed by boys
th a n by girls o n th e m a th e m a tic a l section o f th e SAT. T h ese re p o rts are
n o ta b le because e x p la n a tio n s given fo r th is difference are overw helm ingly
e n v iro n m e n ta l, b o th in te rm s o f n u m b e r o f a rtic le s a n d n u m b e rs o f
sources. T h e genetic hypo th esis p u t fo rth by C a m illa B enbow a n d Ju lia n
S tanley o f Jo h n s H o p k in s U niversity, w hen re p o rte d , is always co u p led
w ith sta te m e n ts o f ex tre m e d isag reem en t from o th e r m e m b ers o f th e ex
p e rt co m m u n ity . (T h o u g h an A ugust 2, 1987, N Y T piece by D an iel G olem a n a d m its th a t a c c u m u la tin g e v id e n c e m a k e s th e B e n b o w -S ta n le y
hypo th esis increasingly plausible.)
T h e average verbal a n d m a th e m a tic a l SAT scores o f U .S. high school
s tu d e n ts d e c lin e d ste ad ily fro m 1963 to 1981. B oth th e N Y T a n d W P
p rovided nearly a n n u a l coverage o f th is p h e n o m e n o n . R e p o rted e x p la n a
tio n s for th e tren d s, a ttrib u te d to ex p e rts a t E TS a n d C E E B as well as o th e r
behavioral scientists, in c lu d e stu d e n t factors (d eclin in g ability, electio n o f
less rigorous courses), school factors (low ering a c ad e m ic sta n d ard s, c u rric
ulu m change, te a c h e r apathy), p are n ts a n d /o r c u ltu re (few er tra d itio n a l
values, less p a re n ta l co n c ern , m o re television), a n d d em o g ra p h ic changes
(ex p an d in g ap p lica n t pool, in c lu d in g m o re low scorers). T h e 1977 re p o rt
by th e C EE B stu d y panel h eaded by W illard W irtz, c o m m issio n ed to stu d y
th e SAT decline, received extensive new s m e d ia coverage. T h e re p o rt su p
p o rte d m o st o f th e h y potheses m e n tio n e d , a n d specifically ru led o u t th e
possibility th a t test q u estio n s w ere g ettin g m o re difficult. C overage o f th e
leveling off o f SAT scores d u rin g the last tw o years o f th is analysis parallels
th a t for th e score decline; th e good new s is a ttrib u te d to a reversal o f th e
afo re m e n tio n e d tren d s, p rim a rily a m o n g schools a n d stu d en ts.
P artial cred it for th e good new s a b o u t average SAT scores o ccasio n ally is
given to th e effects o f increasingly available SAT co ach in g co u rses an d
1 he Nature of News Media Coverage
239
softw are. O verall. SAT co aching has been a p o p u la r to p ic in new sp ap er
coverage o f the SAT. an d is generally h an d led in a balan ced fashion, as the
fo u rth item in Table 7.4 reveals. T he ETS, C EEB, an d th e ir sp o k esm en
re p re se n t v irtu a lly th e on ly n egative sou rces, w hile th e m o st fre q u en t
positive source is th e 1979 F T C re p o rt c o n c lu d in g th a t sm all b u t significant
gains are possible th ro u g h SAT co ach in g courses. (O ver 80 p erc en t o f all
new s m ed ia coverage o f SAT co aching is p ublished o r b ro ad c ast after th e
release o f th e F T C re p o rt.) O th e r positive sources in clu d e S tanley K ap lan
an d o th e r co aching in stru c to rs, as well as stu d e n ts, p aren ts, a n d teach ers
w ho believe in th e value o f coaching. In alm o st h a lf o f all n ew spaper
articles d ealing w ith SAT coaching, it is rep o rted th a t significant co ach in g
effects w ould u n d e rm in e th e claim th a t th e SAT is a m easu re o f a p titu d e
ra th e r th a n ach iev em en t. A b o u t th e sam e n u m b e r o f a rticles rep o rt, u su
ally th ro u g h assertio n o r im p lica tio n , th a t significant co ach in g effects lead
to e c o n o m ic u n fairn ess in th e SAT because m a n y stu d e n ts c a n n o t afford
th e cost o f co aching schools.
In 1980, N ew York S tate passed th e n a tio n s first tr u th - in - te s tin g law,
req u irin g ad m issio n s test m a k ers to release th e c o n te n ts a n d answ ers to
th e ir tests to test tak ers w ith in a p rescribed p eriod o f tim e afte r test a d m in
istratio n . T h e N Y T a n d W P provide balan ced coverage o f th e d eb ate over
th is law (item 5, Table 7.4), in th e sense th a t they ju s t as o ften re p o rt th a t
th e law will have a positive effect on test q u ality as th a t it will be negative.
T h e p a rtic ip a n ts in th is d ebate, as rep o rted by th e new spapers, w ere R alp h
N ad e r an d o th e r n o n e x p e rt critics o f testin g on th e positive side, an d th e
ETS, CEEB, a n d o th e r m em b ers o f the testin g in d u stry o n th e negative.
A b sen t tro m th e list o f sources are o th e r testing experts, w ho are p re d o m i
n an tly opposed to such laws (q u estio n 25).
Follow ing th e passage o f th e N ew York law, ETS ad o p te d a policy o f
co m p lete d isclosure nationw ide. O ne o f th e co n seq u e n ces o f th is policy
afforded th e new s m ed ia o n e o f its greatest o p p o rtu n itie s for th e glorifica
tio n o f th e oppressed. T he fro n t page o f th e M arch 17, 1981, N Y T co n tain s
an article en title d “ Y outh O u tw its M erit E xam , R aising 24 0 ,0 0 0 Scores.”
T h e a rtic le describ es how F lo rid a high school stu d e n t D an ie l Low en,
w hose p ic tu re is also show n on th e fro n t page, w as able to d e m o n stra te to
th e E TS th a t th e approved answ er to o n e o f th e m a th e m a tic a l q u estio n s on
its P re lim in ary S cholastic A p titu d e Test (PSAT), used to screen N atio n al
M erit S cholarship ap p lica n ts, was w rong, a n d th a t his an sw er was right.
Low en w as able to spot th e e rro r because he h ad received a co p y o f th e test
an d his co rrec ted answ ers as a resu lt o f the ETS disclosure policy.
D u rin g th e next m o n th a n d a half, th e N Y T ran six article s in w hich
Low en was eith er m e n tio n e d o r figured pro m in en tly , his case used as a
sp rin g b o ard for discussions o f am b ig u o u s a n d m islead in g test q u estio n s
240
The IQ Controversy
an d th e e x tra o rd in a ry an d u n ch eck ed c o n tro l th e testin g estab lish m e n t has
over o u r lives. W hile n o t m ilked to th e sam e degree, th e sto ry also was
given extensive coverage in th e W P, T im e , N ew sw eek, a n d on CBS an d
N B C new s program s. T h e a p p a re n t n ew sw orth in ess o f th e sto ry o f a single
co rrec ted test q u estio n is testim o n y to the im p o rta n c e th e new s m ed ia
ascribe to th e SAT. In a S ep te m b er 2, 1979, N Y T M a g a zin e article, “ T h e
A m eric an Way o f T esting,” T h o m a s C. W heeler asserts:
Though E.T.S. announces that the SAT is not designed to judge the “worth"
of anyone, the test sets implicit standards of worth by becoming a passport to
education, income and social status. An SAT score— the score of a single
test—can set the direction of a lifetime.
T h e final item in Table 7.4, “ T h e SAT is cu ltu rally b ia sed ,” lo o k s m u c h
like th e sam e item in T able 7.2; charges o f SAT bias are freq u en tly re
p o rte d , a n d rarely c o n tra d icted . (A n o ta b le ex cep tio n is a very careful
a rtic le on ETS on th e fro n t page o f th e F eb ru ary 28, 1978, W S J.) T h e
u n b a la n c e d n a tu re o f th is coverage seem s even m o re e x tra o rd in a ry w h en
o n e co n sid ers th a t th e ETS a n d C EEB , readily used in defense o f th e SAT
elsew here, are so in fre q u en tly called u p o n to d en y th a t th e SAT is biased.
T h e b la c k -w h ite SAT differential is o ften a ttrib u te d to th e in ferio r q u ality
o f segregated black schools. C onsequently, th e n o tio n s o f c u ltu ra l bias an d
c u ltu ra l d e p riv a tio n are confused. A long artic le o n “T h e C ollege B oards”
in th e M ay 4, 1975, N Y T M a g a zin e ex p lain s th a t th e SAT is an eq u ally
valid p re d ic to r o f college p e rfo rm a n c e for b o th black s an d w hites, b u t
concludes:
The evidence indicates that the tests are culturally biased to the extent that
reading ability is culturally linked. Colleges rely on them because the ability
to do college-level academic work depends on reading skill. Because reading
is a skill that is developed in school and nurtured at home, it is related to
educational and economic opportunity.
N o t e v e ry o n e w ritin g fo r th e n ew sp ap ers co n fu se s c u ltu ra l b ia s a n d
c u ltu ra l d e p riv a tio n , however. A n ed ito rial in th e F eb ru ary 7, 1980, W P by
Jessica T u ch m an M ath ew s ta k es issue w ith th e rec en t N a irn /N a d e r re p o rt
(N a d e r a n d N a irn reply in an o p -e d piece tw o m o n th s later), w hich argues
th a t the SAT is racially an d ec o n o m ically biased a n d sh o u ld be e lim in a te d .
In discussing th e SAT. M s. M athew s d e m o n stra te s a degree o f u n d e rs ta n d
ing a b o u t th e n a tu re o f h eritab ility a n d test bias rare in new s m e d ia ac
c o u n ts, a n d a lm o st c o m p letely a b s e n t fro m d isc u ssio n s o f in tellig en ce
tests:
241
What is the point of these attacks on standardized tests? Abandoning them
could only force colleges to place heavier reliance on measures that are more
subject to social and racial bias. . . . The aptitude that can be measured after
12 or 13 years of schooling is not the native intelligence a student inherits in
his genes. It is the product of 17 years of continual interaction between those
capacities and the student’s environm ent—including everything from pre
natal nutrition, to conditions in the home, to the quality of the school he
attends. If the SAT’s are sending bad news, it is as much about the system that
determines that total environm ent as it is about the individual student. The
news is bad— it does not show the progress that was hoped for. But that is all
the more reason to keep hearing it. (emphasis in the original)
C overage o f S A T -related issues in the forty relev an t new sm ag azin e a r ti
cles is, like new sm agazine coverage o f th e o th e r Issue gro u p s, o f th e sam e
g eneral fo rm as n ew spaper coverage, alb eit in few er articles. T h e d a ta in
Table 7.4 show b alan ced o r positive tre a tm e n t fo r SAT validity, th e aptitu d e -a c h ie v e m e n t d istin c tio n , SAT coaching, a n d tr u th - in - te s tin g , w hile
d ev o tin g m o re articles to critics th a n d efenders c o n c e rn in g in o rd in a te c o n
tro l an d c u ltu ral bias. S ources are also very sim ila r to th o se used in new s
p a p e r coverage: ETS, C EEB , a n d th e ir spo k esm en alm o st exclusively in
defense o f tests, an d R alph N a d e r a n d several o th e r n o n e x p e rt an d ex p e rt
critics o n th e offensive. U n lik e th e new spapers (con sid erin g featu re articles
only), th e new sm agazines m ak e very little use o f assertio n o r im p lica tio n in
coverage o f these issues.
W ith o u t p roviding th e a n n u a l rep o rts o f th e N Y T a n d WP, the new s
m ag azines do discuss tre n d s in average SAT scores in alm o st o n e - q u a rte r
o f all articles co n sid erin g th e SAT, w ith ex p la n a tio n s lin k ed to stu d en ts,
school, cu ltu re, a n d dem ography. T h e W irtz co m m issio n findings are fea
tu re d in all th ree new sm agazines, as are th e F T C co ach in g findings (w hich
are always co u p led w ith ETS response).
P ersistent p ro b lem s in new sm agazine coverage o f th e SAT in clu d e th e
te n d en c y to o n e -sid e d coverage o f testing criticism an d co n fu sio n over
a p titu d e an d ac h iev em en t. T h e la tte r generally o ccu rs in th e c o n tex t o f
d iscu ssions o f SAT coaching. T h e language used to describ e th e SAT in a
Ju n e 11, 1979, T im e article o n co aching is a b o u t sixty years o u t o f date: “ In
theory, th e re is little th a t stu d e n ts can do to p rep a re for th e d rea d day. since
th e SAT supposedly m easu res in n a te ability, n o t learn ed skills.” T h ro u g h
n atio n al exposure, sta te m e n ts like th is help to p e rp e tu a te m y th s a b o u t
testing.
O n th e w hole, however, coverage o f the SAT by th e new sm agazines is
m u ch fairer an d m o re sensitive to ex p e rt o p in io n th a n is th e ir coverage o f
242
The IQ Controversy
intelligence testing. A good ex a m p le o f b o th th e stren g th s a n d w eaknesses
o f th is coverage is p rovided by th e F eb ru ary 18, 1980, N e w sw eek article
“ Tests: H ow G o o d ? H ow F air?” w hich p rim a rily is c o n c e rn e d w ith th e SAT.
T h ere is a d escrip tio n o f R a lp h N a d e r’s “ vitriolic stu d y o f th e E d u ca tio n a l
T esting Service . . . calling it a priv ate reg u la to r o f th e h u m a n m in d 'th a t
served as a fo rm id ab le b a rrie r to m illio n s o f stu d en ts.’” T h is is c o u n te r
b alan ced by:
To the test-makers, the harsh—often ill-inform ed—criticism mistakes both
their purpose and influence. “We are both shocked and dismayed by the
power critics ascribe to us,” says ETS vice president Robert Solomon.
A fter discussion s o f th e w idespread use o f th e SAT a n d ACT, th e pow er o f
the ETS (despite S o lo m o n ’s d em u rrer), a n d SAT v alidity (in clu d in g N a d e r’s
d a ta a n d a response o f “ fra u d ” from an ETS official), th e a u th o rs co n fu se
c u ltu ral bias w ith c u ltu ral d e p riv a tio n . H ere th e jo u rn a lis ts are given som e
help by ETS test dev elo p er R ich a rd A d am s w ho, in resp o n se to th e charge
th a t tests are cu ltu rally biased, is q u o te d as replying “ ‘Tests are biased
tow ard th e e n v iro n m e n t th a t m o st people will w ork in.’” W h e th e r A d am s
ex plained to th e N ew sw eek re p o rte r th a t th is is n o t th e sam e th in g as
c u ltu ral bias is n o t know n, for th e a rtic le follow s th is q u o ta tio n w ith a
d iscussion o f th e L a r r y P. case. D espite th is p ro b lem , th e article en d s w ith
a p ara g ra p h th a t co u ld very well serve as a s u m m a ry o f o u r survey o f ex p e rt
o p in io n :
No one thinks tests are perfect. For all their long history and wide use, they
remain badly misunderstood. At best, they provide an essentially objective
antidote to grades and teachers’ opinions. At worst, they discriminate un
fairly against people whose culture does not match that of the mainly mid
dle-class test-makers. Yet college admissions officers and others who count
on test results insist that the standardized measures give them a significant
tool to judge with reasonable fairness people from all backgrounds and all
parts of the country. If tests did not exist, someone would probably have to
invent them.
T h ere are th irty -se v e n television b ro ad c asts (all b u t n in e from CBS, an d
m o st o f these from th e C B S M o rn in g N ew s) c o n c e rn in g th e SAT, alm o st as
m a n y b ro ad c asts as th e re are relev an t new sm ag azin e articles, yet th e re are
generally few er b ro ad c asts th a n new sm agazine article s listed a m o n g th e
key item s in Table 7.4. T h e sm all n u m b e r th a t exist a p p e a r co n siste n t w ith
th o se from o th e r new s m e d ia (sources on bo th sides o f th e d e b a te are
sim ila r to tho se used in th e new sm agazines, w ith little use o f assertio n o r
243
im plication). R e p o rts o f test criticism (item s 2 an d 6). are derived from
C B S M o rn in g N ew s an d N B C \ig h tly N ew s re p o rts o f N a d e rs charges and
an ABC 2 0 /2 0 segm ent c o n c e n tra tin g on cu ltu ral bias in the SAT.
T h e bulk o f television coverage o f th e SAT lulls in to on e o f th ree categ o
ries. I he first topic, considered by o n e - th ird o f all S A T -related b roadcasts,
is th e tren d s in average SAT score, including th e W irtz co m m issio n rep o rt.
E x p la n atio n s for the decline an d leveling off o f scores parallel those from
o th e r news sources. T he second category o f b ro ad casts co n c ern s coaching
effects, discussed in a C B S E vening N ew s story on th e F T C rep o rt (in
w hich the ETS is cited in opposition), a CBS 30 M in n ies segm ent th at
provides in fo rm a tio n for ch ild ren on th e m e an in g an d use ol the SAI
(in clu d in g a discussion o f co ach in g effects in w hich the ETS is pitted
against th e FT C . Stanley K aplan, and a high school SAT co ach in g p ro
gram ). a C B S M orning N ew s story on SAT co achin g softw are, an d C B S
M o rn ing News an d N B C N ig lu ly N ew s stories on a successful F lorida high
school coaching p rog ram in w hich groups o f stu d e n ts c o m p ete against each
o th e r in a m ilita ry gam e, co m p lete w ith battle fatigues an d w ar cries,
th ro u g h the use o f c o m p u te r-a d m in iste re d SAT questio n s.
T he final category o f television new s b ro ad casts co n c ern in g th e SAT falls
u n d e r the heading o f u n d erd o g stories in w hich the in d iv id u al test ta k er is
dw arfed by the " a ll-im p o rta n t S cholastic A p titu d e T est” 5 an d th e ETS
"testin g em pire."'’ F orem ost am o n g these is th e case o f D aniel Lowen an d
th e co rrected PSAT q u estio n . T he story was originally covered by b o th the
C B S M orning News and N B C N ig h tly N ew s. T h e C B S M o rn in g N ew s
follow ed up th e story th ree w eeks later, giving m ore possible answ ers to the
q u estio n , and w ithin the next n in eteen m o n th s ran two o th e r stories on
stu d e n ts finding erro rs in SAT q uestions. D uring th e su m m e r o f 1983. b oth
th e N BC an d ABC evening new s p ro g ram s b ro ad c ast stories a b o u t a trial in
New Jersey in w hich four high school stu d e n ts w hose SAT scores had been
in v a lid a te d for su sp ic io n o f c h e a tin g w-ere c h a lle n g in g th e sta tistic a l
m eth o d by w hich the ETS d e te rm in e s such in v alid atio n . Ty pical o f th e way
the television netw orks trea t the ETS and SAT is the July 14. 1983. rep o rt
on ABC World News Tonight describing the trial. T h e le a d -in by Max
R o b in so n begins:
E ach year m o re th a n a m illion high school s tu d e n ts take the SAT e x a m s —
e x a m s which are crucial in decid ing where, or even whether, th e y ’ll go to
college. Now. in the lirst trial o f its kind, four f o r m e r high school stu d e n ts
from S h ort Kills. New Jersey are c la im in g the E d u ca tio n a l Testing Service
arbitrarily cancelled th eir test scores because o f a r u m o u r they cheated.
N ot only does this sta te m e n t o verem phasize the im p o rta n c e o f the SAT.
244
The IQ Controversy
b u t by m isrep resen tin g th e facts o f th e case, it p o rtray s th e ETS in th e w orst
possible light. W hen th e case was decided in favor o f th e ETS, ABC chose
n o t to rep o rt th e news.
Em ploym ent Testing
T h ere is a to tal o f only fo rty -th re e articles a n d b ro ad casts (tw e n ty -o n e
N Y T , ten WP, five W SJ, th ree new sm agazines, fo u r television netw orks)
from all sources co n c ern in g em p lo y m e n t-te stin g . T h e a m o u n t o f codeable
m aterial is even sm aller, as code sheets w ere set up to record general sta te
m e n ts ab o u t testing, a n d m ost coverage o f em p lo y m e n t tests co n c ern s
specific tests. N ew s m edia a c co u n ts o f em p lo y m e n t testin g generally a p
p ear in one ot th ree wavs: First, an d m ost frequently, as rep o rts o f legal
challenges to em p lo y m e n t tests such as G riggs v. D u k e Power, th e PACE
co n sen t decree (covered in a series o f articles in th e N Y T , as well as rep o rts
in th e o th e r tw o new spapers), th e N ew York C ity police se rg e an t’s exam ,
a n d a 1978 S up rem e C o u rt decision on a S ou th C a ro lin a teach ers' test
(covered by all three television netw orks). T hese rep o rts usually involve
d escrip tio n s of a suit b ro u g h t by indiv id u als o r o rg an iz atio n s rep resen tin g
m in o rity test takers, w ho claim th a t the test in q u estio n is racially d isc rim i
n ato ry ; op p o sin g view points are rarely p resented . (R e p o rts o f th e 1978
S u p rem e C o u rt decision say only th a t the C o u rt u p h eld th e right o f th e
states to give such tests, despite d isp ro p o rtio n a te im p act.) T h ese sta te
m e n ts are codeable only if, in the ju d g m e n t o f th e coder, they ap p ly to
em p lo y m e n t testing as a w hole, o r if th e jo u rn a lis t seem s to im ply th a t such
p ro b lem s are w idespread. A second way em p lo y m e n t tests ap p e ar in th e
press is th ro u g h letters to the ed ito r regarding th e PACE d ecree (tw o letters
o pposing th e decree in bo th the N Y T an d W SJ) an d ed ito rials on PACE
an d o th e r em p lo y m e n t tests. A J a n u a ry 29, 1981. A T T co lu m n (by W illiam
Satire) favorable to PACE is followed by a F ebruary 17 A F T ed ito rial su p
p o rtin g the co n sen t decree th a t elim in a te d th e exam . W illiam R a sp b erry
w rote a series o f co lu m n s in th e W P an d N ew sw eek d ealin g w ith testing,
an d occasionally to u c h ed on em p lo y m e n t tests. A S ep te m b er 23, 1974,
"M y T u rn ” piece in N ew sw eek provides codeable m aterial:
M ost j o b tests sh o u ld be re co n stru c te d to m a k e th e m m o re clearly related to
the tasks to be p e rfo rm e d . T h e Federal service e n tr a n c e e x a m i n a t io n , for
instance, is used to screen a p p lic an ts for m o r e th a n 100 different jobs. But
since the q u e stio n s have little to d o with th e specific skills req uire d for those
j obs, it s a safe bet th at they screen o u t a lot o f people w h o co u ld p e r fo r m well
on the job. It s a safe bet. too, that they screen o u t a d i s p r o p o r t io n a t e p e r c e n t
age o f poten tially c o m p e t e n t blacks. T h e r e is c ultu ral bias, you know, ( e m
phasis in original)
H ie Nature of News Media Coverage
245
T h e final category o f e m p lo y m e n t-te stin g stories is th a t in w hich e m
p lo y m en t tests are m e n tio n e d in an article or bro ad cast p rim arily dealing
w ith ed u c atio n al tests. T hese include articles on th e SAT th a t also deal w ith
ETS extensive in v o lv em en t in licensing an d professional exam s. T h e IQ
M yth (w here the invalidity o f em p lo y m e n t tests is described), articles on
general criticism s o f testing, an d those w here the o m n ip re sen c e an d o m
n ip o te n ce o f testing are stressed, as in th e J a n u a ry 16. 1983, W ashington
Post M a g a zin e piece “ Testing A n xiety" (w ith th e su b h e ad in g "Tests can
d e te rm in e w hat jo b s we get. how m u ch m oney we m ake, w here we live an d
w'hom we m arry— no w onder we w o rry ” ). In these rep o rts, m any ot the
sam e criticism s leveled against ed u c atio n al tests (bias, overuse) are d irected
at em p lo y m e n t tests.
C o deable sta te m e n ts a b o u t em p lo y m e n t testing follow th e sam e p a tte rn
as rep o rts o f o th e r criticism s o f testing; em p lo y m e n t tests are challenged,
a n d rarely defended. "A significant a m o u n t o f em p lo y m e n t testin g is in
valid" an d "T h e rejection o f a d isp ro p o rtio n a te n u m b e r o f m in o rity c a n d i
d ates from m any jo b s can be traced to invalid tests” are each coded ten
tim es as positive, w ith o u t any reb u ttal. “ T esting in em p lo y m e n t is over
used " receives four u n answ ered positive codes. "E m p lo y m e n t tests are
often cultu rally b iased ” is coded as ten positive, tw o negative, an d two
b o th . T h e negative code for bias com es from n ew spap er an d n ew sm agazine
coverage o f the 1982 N atio n al A cadem y o f Sciences rep o rt on ability tests
th a t co n clu d es e d u c a tio n a l an d em p lo y m e n t tests are generally not biased.
T hese new s stories are am o n g th e few uses o f ex p e rt so u rces in coverage o f
e m p lo y m e n t tests. C h a lle n g e s to e m p lo y m e n t te sts c o m e a lm o s t ex
clusively from n o n e x p e rt g roups an d individuals, an d th is is reflected in
new s m ed ia coverage. O ne h a lf o f all sources for e m p lo y m e n t testin g code
are n o n e x p e rt others, an d a n o th e r th ird are assertio n s o r im p lica tio n s; only
15 p ercen t o f all source codes rep resen t experts.
Intelligence and A ptitude Testing O utside the L .S.
T h e first news rep o rt, chronologically, in this c o n te n t analysis is a J a n u
ary 31. 1969, A T T a r tic le d ealing w ith the request by a Soviet e d u c a to r th a t
his g o v ern m e n t ad o p t a policy o f regular use o f objective a p titu d e tests for
selection in ed u c a tio n an d em p lo y m e n t. Such tests, he said, w ould increase
p ro d u ctiv ity an d fairness, co n siste n t w ith Socialist goals. " ‘A reco g n itio n o f
cap ab ilities o p en s th e way for th e ir fullest d ev e lo p m e n t, an d a co rrec t
ev a lu a tio n o f a p titu d e s in d irectly helps assess th e actu al labor, th e real
c o n trib u tio n th a t perso n m akes to society,’ th e M oscow e d u c a to r said."
A M ay 19, 1981. N Y T article on changes in the testin g in d u stry co n tain s
a on e parag rap h d escrip tio n o f an ag reem en t signed by E TS to test C hinese
¿46
i he IQ Controversy
stu d e n ts p la n n in g to a tte n d college in the U .S. T h e rem a in in g six articles
(tw o ;VY7'. tw o WP, one T im e , one U.S. N ew s) th a t in som e way deal w ith
testin g o utside th e U n ite d States all co n c ern th e su p e rio r IQ o f th e average
J a p a n e se sc h o o lch ild . In h a lf o f these, e x p la n a tio n s for th e J a p a n e s e A m eric an IQ differential are proposed, an d they are all e n v iro n m e n ta l. An
e d ito rial by N icholas W ade in th e S ep tem b er 10, 1982, N Y T states. “ If
Ja p an ese kids score higher th a n A m ericans, o r w hite ch ild ren higher th a n
blacks, th e likeliest ex p la n a tio n lies in differences o f ed u c atio n al o r e n
v iro n m e n ta l o p p o rtu n ity .”
News M edia Accuracy Ratings
As p a rt o f the survey o f testing experts, we asked resp o n d e n ts for th e ir
o p in io n o f the accuracy o f vario u s new s sources in rep o rtin g issues related
to intelligence an d testing. Table 7.5 presen ts th e results o f these ratings,
w hich w ere m ade on a 7 -p o in t scale, w ith 1 as “ very in a c c u ra te ” a n d 7 as
“ very accurate." M ean ratings fall in th e m idd le o f th e accu racy range,
reflecting bo th su b stan tia l accuracy an d inaccuracy, w ith th e C h ristia n
T A B L E 7.5
Expert Opinion of News Media Accuracy on Testing Related Issues
News Source
Christian Science Monitor
Commercial television networks
Mean Accuracy
Rating“
5.08
(1 .4 4 p
3.09
% Responding
24.1
6 8.7
(1.18)
National Public Radio
4.4
49.2
(1 .4 1 )
New York Times
4.62
58.2
Newsweek
(1.31)
3.85
51.7
PBS television
(1.2)
4.8
59.5
(1.18)
Time
3.83
54
(1.21)
U.S. News and World Report
Walt Street Journal
3.72
(1.29)
4.4
37.4
37.2
(1.28)
Hashington Post
3.98
29.8
(1.4)
'] = “ Very i n a c c u r a te , " 7 = “ Very accurate.' ' hN u m b e r s in pa re nth e se s are s ta n d a rd deviations.
247
S cien c e M o n ito r d o in g noticeab ly b e tte r (5.08), a n d co m m ercial television
n etw orks d o in g noticeab ly w orse (3.09) in ex p e rt o p in io n . U n fo rtu n a tely ,
co m m ercial television is th e single m o st p o p u la r new s so u rce a m o n g the
g en eral pu b lic (as it ap p e ared to be am o n g experts, ju d g in g by response
rates). T h e N Y T , long co n sid ered by jo u rn a lis ts to be th e h allm a rk o f fair
a n d a c cu rate rep o rtin g , receives a 4.62. M edia ac cu racy ratings are n o t
significantly related to an y o f th e d e m o g ra p h ic a n d b ac k g ro u n d variables
d iscussed at th e en d o f C h a p te r 5, w ith th e ex cep tio n th a t p o litical liber
a lism b ea rs a sig n ific an t p o sitiv e re la tio n sh ip to ratin g s o f th e P u b lic
B ro adcasting System (PBS) an d N atio n al P ublic R adio.
C a u tio n m u st be observed in in te rp re tin g th e ratin g s in T able 7.5 as
m e asu res o f accu racy in rela tio n to testing, as o pp o sed to m o re general
ratin g s o r o p in io n a b o u t th e q u ality o f new s coverage as a w hole. T h e
su b sta n tia l response rate for PBS is p a rtic u la rly tro u b le so m e, given o u r
in a b ility to find m o re th a n o n e PBS sto ry o n testin g in a fiftee n -y e ar
p eriod.
T h e foregoing c o n te n t analysis reveals th a t th e new s m ed ia, p articu la rly
o n n o n -S A T issues, p resen ts a very different p ic tu re o f te stin g th a n th a t
o b ta in e d fro m o u r survey o f e x p e rt o p in io n . By stressin g th e in d e te r
m in a cy o f a d efin itio n o f intelligence, th e lim ita tio n s o f tested ability, th e
u b iq u ito u s n e s s o f te st m isu se, th e in o r d in a te c o n tro l e x e rte d by te st
m ak ers, an d c u ltu ra l bias in tests, th e new s m e d ia have p resen ted to th e
read in g a n d view ing pu b lic a d isto rte d im age o f testing, o n e m o re co n sis
te n t w ith the o p in io n o f a d isa p p o in te d test ta k e r th a n th a t o f th o se w ho
know m o st a b o u t tests. T h e views o f th e ex p e rt c o m m u n ity are lost w hen
H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , an d Shockley, in ad d itio n to being freq u en tly m is
rep resen ted , are cast as in tellectu al loners in th e ir defense o f su b stan tial
h eritab ility an d th e validity o f tests. M oreover, w h eth e r as a resu lt o f d isin
clin a tio n to clarify issues th a t w ould p u t testin g an d its su p p o rte rs in a
b e tte r light, o r because o f in a d e q u a te tech n ical train in g , jo u rn a lis ts have
d o n e a great disservice to th e ir au d ien c e by p o rtra y in g IQ h eritab ility as an
a l l- o r - n o n e p h e n o m e n o n , a n d by co n fu sin g w ith in - a n d b e tw e e n -g ro u p
h e rita b ility , c u ltu r a l d e p riv a tio n a n d c u ltu ra l bias, a n d a p titu d e a n d
ac h ie v em e n t. S uch in a cc u ra cie s ad d fuel to th e fires o f th e IQ con tro v ersy
ju s t as surely as does p o rtra y in g L eon K a m in as a sp o k esm an for a su b sta n
tial p o rtio n o f th e psychological com m unity.
All o f th is is n o t to say th a t th e new s m e d ia co u ld be accu rately c h a ra c
te rized as sp o k esm en for L eon K a m in a n d R a lp h N ader. T h ere are m a n y
ex cellent new s re p o rts a b o u t testin g in w hich th e views o f critics are placed
in th e c o n tex t o f an accu rate assessm ent o f ex p e rt o p in io n , a n d th e re is
little d o u b t th a t m o st jo u rn a lis ts an d ed ito rs a tte m p t to be fair. B ut fairness
a n d accu racy are n o t th e n o rm in new s m ed ia coverage o f intelligence an d
248
The IQ Controversy
a p titu d e testing. B ecause o f th e co n stra in ts p laced o n th e m by th e ir m ed ia,
a n d by th e ir ow n beliefs a n d values (see A p p en d ix E) th o se w ho re p o rt th e
new s are m o re a p t to achieve b alan c e by p ittin g A rth u r Je n sen ag ain st
L eo n K a m in a n d R o b e rt W illiam s, a n d R a lp h N a d e r ag ain st th e E T S, th a n
to a tte m p t a m o re global perspective o f th e IQ controversy.
T h e re are m a n y ways to tell th e tru th . T h e q u o te fro m th e W P th a t en d s
o u r discu ssio n o f n ew sp ap er coverage o f SAT issues is ex cep tio n al becau se
it places criticism s o f te stin g in th e ir p ro p e r perspective. In tellig en ce a n d
a p titu d e tests have p ro b lem s, as an y sch o o lte ach e r o r te stin g ex p e rt will tell
you, b u t th e y are also am o n g th e best d e c isio n -m a k in g to o ls we have. T h e
new s m e d ia regularly re p o rt th e form er, b u t rarely th e latter. Tests are
gatekeepers; th ey p re v e n t m a n y peo p le fro m o b ta in in g th e e d u c a tio n a l a n d
e m p lo y m e n t o p p o rtu n itie s th ey desire. As a resu lt, tests are an easy targ et
fo r th e rejected, a n d for those, in c lu d in g th e new s m ed ia, w ho see th e m
selves as c h a m p io n s o f th e oppressed. (Ironically, th is d e fe n d e r’s a ttitu d e
m ay also w ork to favor tests. As th is b o o k goes to press, th e new s m e d ia are
engaged in w idespread a n d largely sy m p a th e tic coverage o f M a ry A m ay a’s
struggle to have an intelligence test a d m in iste re d to h e r so n in d efiance o f
th e L a r r y P. decision.) T h ro u g h all o f th is it is fo rg o tten th a t th e tests do
n o t create lim ite d o p p o rtu n itie s a n d resources, th ey are m erely to o ls in
te n d e d to achieve th e m o st efficient a n d eq u itab le allo ca tio n o f a sm all pie.
W h e n these to o ls fall sh o rt o f th e ir goal, it is th e b u sin ess o f th e new s m e d ia
to re p o rt it, b u t th ey also have th e resp o n sib ility to ex p lain th e altern ativ es.
N o tes
1. “Shockley Wins $1 in Libel Suit,” New York Tim es, 15 September 1984, p. 8.
2. “Is Equality Bad For You?” Time, 23 August 1971, p. 33.
3. Stanley N. Wellborn, “A ‘Genetic Elite’ Taking Shape in U.S.?” U.S. News and
World Report, 24 March 1980, p. 49.
4. World News Tonight, ABC, 14 July 1983.
5. “Testing-True or False,” 20/20, ABC, 24 April 1980.
6. Ibid.
8
Conclusion: The New Sociology of Science
The IQ Controversy and the Informed Public
In the 1950s, tho se liberal an d in fo rm ed A m erican s w ho m o st influenced
p u b lic policy believed th a t intelligence an d a p titu d e tests c o n trib u te d to
social progress. A society in w hich w h ite A n g lo -P ro te s ta n t n o tio n s o f
c h a ra c te r an d th e right co n n e c tio n s had been o f key im p o rta n c e in social
an d ec o n o m ic a d v a n c e m e n t was being tra n sfo rm e d in to o n e in w hich
m e rit played a far m o re significant role. D u rin g th e 1940s a n d 1950s elite
u n iv ersities began to op en th e ir d o o rs m o re w idely to prev io u sly excluded
groups, a n d tho se gaining en tra n c e w ere being a d m itte d , a t least in p a rt,
because such in stitu tio n s w ere tu rn in g to “ ob jectiv e” tests o f ability.
M any also saw intelligence an d a p titu d e tests as a way o f h elp in g young
people w ith ed u c atio n al deficits a n d o f p lacing ad u lts in jo b s for w hich th ey
w ere best suited. As a result, IQ a n d a p titu d e tests gained m o re w idespread
use in p ublic school system s as o n e m e ch a n ism for lo catin g b o th ta len ted
ch ild ren an d ch ild ren w ith special problem s. In th e w orkplace th e tests
w ere used as an aid in decid in g w ho to hire for p o sitio n s req u irin g different
skills.
As befitted (so m an y th o u g h t) an ad v a n ce d o r “ p o s t-in d u s tria l” society,
th e U n ite d S tates was b ec o m in g a m erito cracy .1 T h ere w ere th o se w ho
o b jected to th is tren d . S om e conservatives saw it as ero d in g tra d itio n a l
values based on n o tio n s o f character, an d radicals o f a c e rta in ty p e believed
th a t th e goal o f a m erito cracy violated n o rm s o f e q u a lity an d rep resen ted
an a tte m p t by a c a p ita list society to conceal its basic flaws. However, o p p o
n en ts o f testing rep resen ted a sm all m inority.
D u rin g th e 1950’s, scientists a n d th e in fo rm e d p u b lic accep ted as a m a t
te r o f course th e assu m p tio n th a t genetic factors w ere im p o rta n tly involved
in in d iv id u al differences in m e asu red intelligence, as well as th e arg u m e n t
(against th e po sitio n ta k en by m a n y as late as th e 1920s) th a t differences in
249
250
The IQ Controversy
IQ am o n g v arious eth n ic o r racial g ro u p s w ere w holely th e resu lt o f e n
v iro n m e n tal factors.2
In th e p ast tw en ty -fiv e years th is c o n v e n tio n a l w isdom has chan g ed
d ra m a tic a lly . In te llig e n c e a n d a p titu d e te sts have fallen in to d isfa v o r
a m o n g th e literate p ublic, as have a tte m p ts to define intelligence. H ow ever
intelligence is defined, th e suggestion th a t in d iv id u al differences in in te l
ligence, like in d iv id u al capacities for p a in tin g o r co m p o sin g , m ay have a
gen etic c o m p o n e n t has beco m e a n a th e m a .
M o re significantly, th e literate a n d in fo rm ed p u b lic to d ay is p ersu a d ed
th a t th e m a jo rity o f ex p e rts in th e field believe it is im possible to a d e
q u ately define intelligence, th a t intelligence tests do n o t m easu re a n y th in g
th a t is relevant to life p e rfo rm a n c e , an d th a t they are b iased ag ain st m in o r
ities, p rim a rily blacks an d H ispanics, as well as ag ain st th e poor. It ap p ears
from book review s in p o p u la r jo u rn a ls a n d fro m n ew sp ap er an d television
coverage o f IQ issues th a t such are th e views o f th e vast m a jo rity o f ex p erts
w ho study q u e stio n s o f intelligence an d intelligence testing.
T h e new c o n v e n tio n a l w isdom has n o t e lim in a te d te stin g fro m school
system s a n d e m p lo y m e n t b u t, as th e resu lt o f a series o f c o u rt d ecisio n s a n d
legislative e n a c tm e n ts as well as v o lu n ta ry ac tio n s by teach ers an d a d m in
istrato rs, th e use o f b o th IQ an d ability testin g has d ec lin ed co n sid erab ly
from its heyday in th e 1950s. M u ch o f th is chan g e m ay be for th e good, as
tests have been b o th m isused a n d overused. B ut th e re is also th e serious
dan g e r o f ab su rd ities like th e L a rry P. case o r th e N ew Y ork C ity Police
serg ean t’s exam , w hen policy decisions regardin g testin g are b ased o n p o p
u la r m isco n c ep tio n s ra th e r th a n in fo rm e d o p in io n .
E x p ert views have n o t u n d erg o n e th e fu n d a m e n ta l ch an g e ch a racteristic
o f the a ttitu d e s o f th e in fo rm e d public, despite th e ex p a n sio n o f e n v iro n
m e n talism w ith in th e ex p e rt co m m u n ity . O n th e w hole, sch o lars w ith an y
expertise in th e are a o f intelligence a n d intelligence te stin g (defined very
bro ad ly ) share a c o m m o n view o f th e m o st im p o rta n t c o m p o n e n ts o f
intelligence, a n d are co n v in ce d th a t it can be m e asu red w ith som e degree
o f accuracy. A n o verw helm ing m a jo rity also believe th a t in d iv id u al genetic
in h e ritan c e c o n trib u te s to v aria tio n s in IQ w ith in th e w h ite co m m u n ity ,
an d a sm aller m a jo rity express the sam e view a b o u t th e b la c k -w h ite an d
SES differences in IQ.
T h e ex p e rt c o m m u n ity does have rese rv atio n s a b o u t th e d efin itio n o f
intelligence an d w h at intelligence an d a p titu d e tests m easu re. T h ey d o n o t
w ish to reify test scores. T h ey recognize th a t such tests are o ften m isused.
N onetheless, ex p e rts c o n tin u e to believe th a t, d esp ite p ro b lem s, testin g
plays a useful role in o u r society a n d th a t, pro p erly used, IQ a n d a p titu d e
tests can c o n trib u te significantly to social w ell-b ein g .
W h a t has p ro d u c e d so sh a rp a d isju n c tio n betw een th e views o f th e
251
literate citiz en ry an d tho se o f th e relevant scientific c o m m u n ity w ith re
gard to testing? H ow does o n e ex p lain th e d isto rte d im age o f th e views o f
th e sc ie n tific c o m m u n ity th a t h as b e c o m e p a r t o f th e c o n v e n tio n a l
w isdom , in c lu d in g th e co n v e n tio n a l w isdom o f jo u rn a lists? O n e key ele
m e n t is th e civil rights rev o lu tio n th a t began in the 1960s, a rev o lu tio n th a t
has fu n d a m e n ta lly ch anged th e c o n to u rs o f A m erican politics.
A m eric an s tra d itio n a lly have believed stro n g ly in e q u a lity o f o p p o r
tunity. T h ey also have believed th a t, by a n d large, success d ep en d s u p o n
o p p o rtu n ity , luck, a n d “ ch a racter,” i.e., th e w illingness an d ab ility to d isci
plin e o n eself an d w ork hard. T h is essentially d e m o cratic ethos, w ith its
em p h asis u p o n character, has always been p a rt o f th e A m eric an creed,
th o u g h h is to ric a lly te m p e r e d by b eliefs in th e in n a te in f e r io r ity o f
n o n -A n g lo -S a x o n peoples, in c lu d in g th e Irish. Italian s, Poles, Jew s an d .
especially, black s.3 C o m m itm e n ts to m e rit an d efficiency w ere also te m
pered by a b elief th a t c e rta in k in d s o f beh av io r (ch aracter) w ere a p p ro p ria te
w hile o th e rs w ere not.
D u rin g the 1940s an d 1950s. a purely m e rito cratic view w as triu m p h in g
over tra d itio n a l n o tio n s o f ch a racter, a n d an un easy c o m p ro m ise w as
reach ed betw een these tw o aspects o f A m eric an th o u g h t. As Bell p o in ts o u t
in T h e C ultu ra l C ontradictions o f C a p ita lism , th e triu m p h was in p a rt
d ic tated by th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e ec o n o m ic order, w hich d e m a n d e d th a t
rew ards be based on a c o m b in a tio n o f ability a n d effort. Such n o tio n s were
also im p licit in th e lib e ra l-c a p ita list ideology th a t u n d erlay th a t order.
A t th e sam e tim e, it was no longer co n sid ered reaso n ab le by social
scien tists (especially in th e light o f th e N azi experience) to believe th a t an y
g ro u p differences m ig h t involve a genetic co m p o n e n t. O n e co u ld still b e
lieve th a t differences betw een in d iv id u als had so m e th in g to d o w ith w hat
they in h e rited , b u t differences betw een eth n ic o r racial g ro u p s w ere en tirely
th e resu lt o f th e b arriers faced by m in o rities, especially black A m erican s.
T h e c o m p ro m ise began to unravel in the 1960s. T h e shift was in th e
d irec tio n o f co m p letely en v iro n m e n ta l ex p la n a tio n s o f in d iv id u al as well
as g ro u p differences. A rth u r Je n sen was attac k ed becau se he w rote a b o u t
th e possibility o f a genetic c o m p o n e n t o f racial differences in IQ, b u t the
a tta c k on the h ere d itaria n positio n w ent further. R ich ard H e rrn s te in was
ch aracterized as a racist because he em p h asized th e h e re d ita ry c o m p o n e n t
o f differences a m o n g w hites, even th o u g h he claim ed agn o sticism as to
b la c k - w h ite d iffe ren ce s. H e re d ita ria n view s a b o u t d iffe re n c e s a m o n g
w hites were n o t to be expressed publicly in th e m a n n e r in w hich H e rrn s
tein presen ted th e m .4 To m any, th e ad m issio n th a t intelligence co u ld be
defined o r th a t th e re was any h ere d itary c o m p o n e n t to intelligence was
ta n ta m o u n t to an assertio n th a t genetic factors also played a role in racial
a n d e th n ic differences even if such an assertio n was n ot m ade.
252
The IQ Controversy
T h u s, th e civil rights issue played a key role in u n d e rm in in g th e 1950s
c o n v e n tio n a l w isdom a b o u t intelligence a n d in tellig en ce testing. T h ere
w ere, o f course, o th e r factors involved. We n o te d in C h a p te r 1 th a t D an iel
Bell perceives a “ sea c h a n g e” in th e n a tu re o f A m eric an ideology in th e
past fifty years.
T h e U n ite d States w as created by an elite w hose b ac k g ro u n d a n d p erc ep
tio n s derived from an English P u ritan tra d itio n th a t stressed c o n tro l o f th e
p assions in th e p u rsu it o f m u n d a n e w orldly tasks. S tro n g c o m m itm e n ts to
se lf-d isc ip lin e a n d re stra in t w ere em b ed d e d in th is tra d itio n .5
As m a n y sc h o la rs have p o in te d o u t, th e tr a d itio n gave rise to th e
h eg em o n y o f liberal cap italism in the U n ite d States w ith its em p h asis on
p ractical activity, th e free m a rk e t, a n d p olitical dem o cracy .6 A n th o n y W al
lace su m m arize s so m e o f th e elem e n ts o f th e d o m in a n t A m erican creed o f
th e tim e in his perceptive d iscussion o f th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f a sm all A m er
ican in d u stria l c o m m u n ity in th e n in e te e n th ce n tu ry :
It was in Rockdale, and in dozens of other industrial com munities like Rock
dale, that an American world view developed which pervades the present—or
did so until recently— with a sense of superior Christian virtue, a sense of
global mission, a sense of responsibility and capability of bringing enlighten
ment to a dark and superstitious world, for overthrowing ancient and new
tyrannies, and for making backward infidels into Christian men of enter
prise.7
By th e m id d le o f th e tw en tieth century, however, th e tra d itio n a l A m er
ican eth o s h ad been ero d ed by affluence a n d new ideologies th a t, w ith th e
c ru m b lin g o f a tra d itio n a l religious o rie n ta tio n , so u g h t m e an in g in th e
satisfactions o f increasin g c o n s u m p tio n .8
T h e eth o s w as also ero d ed by th e em ergen ce o f new strategic elites,
th em selves a p ro d u c t o f an ad v a n ce d in d u stria l society. T h ese elites in
clu d ed g o v ern m e n t b u re a u c ra ts an d vario u s so c ial-se rv ice professionals
w ho, alo n g w ith c u ltu ral elites, have been grow ing rap id ly in size a n d
influence. M ost in d iv id u als in these sectors have received college e d u c a
tio n s, an d so m e tim e s d o c to ra te s . By th e m id 1960s, th e U .S. b o asted
5 00,000 college faculty. In 1899/1900, 382 d o c to ra te s w ere g ran ted in the
U n ite d States. T h e n u m b e r g ran te d in 1976/1977 w as 33,000, an d th e to ta l
n u m b e r o f such degree rec ip ien ts was close to 6 0 0,000. By 1982 a p p ro x
im ately 750,000 A m eric an s held d o cto ra l degrees.9
In 1940, a p p ro x im ate ly 3.4 m illion A m eric an s o ver tw en ty -fiv e years o f
age h ad c o m p leted four o r m o re years o f college, less th a n five p e rc e n t o f
th e relev an t age group. By 1973, the n u m b e r w as well over 11 m illio n , an d
by 1985 it had reached 27 m illio n , o r alm o st 20 p erc en t o f th e p o p u la tio n .
T h e n u m b e r o f perso n s in th e w ork force classified as p ro fessio n als rose
253
from 4 m illion to over 12 m illion betw een 1950 an d 1974, a n d to ju s t u n d e r
16 m illion in 1980.
T h e p h e n o m e n a l grow th o f th is stra tu m was p artly a fu n ctio n o f afflu
ence. T h e A m erican ec o n o m y grew w ith u n p rec ed en ted rap id ity in the
1940s an d 1950s, p roviding fun d s an d o p p o rtu n itie s for all so rts o f service
p erso nnel from acad em ics to psychiatrists. T h e n u m b e r o f th o se “ M e tro A m eric an s," as Eric G o ld m a n has called th em , o r at least th a t seg m en t o f
th e m w hich had co m e to feel so m ew h at estranged from tra d itio n a l A m er
ican in stitu tio n s an d values, had reached a critical m ass by th e 1960s.10 It
was largely the ch ild ren o f this g ro u p w ho m ade up th e cad res an d sy m
p a th iz e rs o f th e 1960s stu d e n t m o v e m en t, a n d th ey a n d th e ir p a re n ts
p rovide (even w hen they are n o t “ intellectu als” ) the read ersh ip for th e N ew
York R eview o f B ooks, th e N a tio n , an d o th e r liberal c o sm o p o lita n jo u rn a ls,
as well as the v o lu n te e r w orkers for liberal political ca n d id a tes. T h ey read
th e b o oks th a t criticize th e large oil c o m p an ie s o r w arn a b o u t th e d eg ra d a
tio n o f th e e n v iro n m e n t. In p u b lic o p in io n polls, th ey rate as stro n g su p
p o rte rs o f civil rights, civil lib erties a n d new life styles to a far g reater
degree th a n tra d itio n a l m id d le -c la ss o r w o rk in g -c lass resp o n d en ts.
P art o f th is has to d o w ith th e ir status. M any feel little vested in terest in
th e m a in te n a n c e o f “ free enterprise." Indeed, as b u re a u c ra ts o r law yers
th ey m ay well have an in terest in increasing th e ex ten t o f g o v ern m e n t
activ ity a n d /o r th e litigation involved in g o v e rn m e n t reg u lato ry activities.
Ju st as im p o rta n t, th ey have been ed u c ated a t colleges a n d u n iv ersities in
w hich they have been ta u g h t new ways to look at a n d ev alu ate th e w o rld .11
O n ly a segm ent o f th is stra tu m shares such u n d ersta n d in g s, b u t it is ju s t
th is segm ent o f th e p o p u la tio n th a t is responsible for th e c re atio n o f activ ist
p u b lic -in te re st groups. “ M e tro -A m e ric a n s” also play im p o rta n t roles in
television a n d m o tio n p ic tu re e n te rta in m e n t an d in th e n atio n al m ed ia,
w here they influence th e views o f a still larger n u m b e r o f A m eric an s.12
W hereas at o n e p o in t A m erican s' c o m m itm e n t to p ro d u c tio n p laced an
em p h asis upon h a rd w ork, d iscipline, a n d m erit, th e new g en e ratio n o f
p rofessionals a n d in te llectu als has rejected such n o tio n s in favor o f self
fulfillm ent a n d se lf-rea liz atio n . T hese g roups w ere a n d are alien ated from
th e re m n a n ts o f A m erican P u rita n ism an d th e idea o f m e rito cratic society.
To th e m , m erito cracy an d in stru m e n ta l ra tio n a lity are ty p ical o f a system
th a t lim its in d iv id u al freedom to be w h at o n e w an ts to be. T h e goal o f
efficiency in c o rp o ra te en terp rise is said to stultify in d iv id u als a n d to m ak e
th e m m iserable a u to m a to n s. T h u s, tests o f ability a n d in telligence are
sim p ly p a r t o f a c o rp o ra te c a p ita lism th a t cre ate s ro b o ts ra th e r th a n
h u m a n b ein g s.13 C o rp o ra te cap italism also p ro d u ces racism . T h e use o f
tests is designed to m a in ta in th e necessary racist basis o f A m erican c a p
italist society.
254
The IQ Controversy
T h e 1960s a n d early 1970s w ere th e heyday o f such a ttitu d e s .14 T h ey have
declin ed in p o p u la rity in recen t years, b u t they have by n o m ean s d isa p
p eared. R ather, in a m o d e ra ted fo rm , they have b eco m e an im p o rta n t p a rt
o f th e A m erican c u ltu ra l scene. M ost ed u c ated p rofessionals, especially
tho se in jo u rn a lis m a n d th e helping professions, are now so m ew h at a lie n
ated from tra d itio n a l A m eric an values. T h is a lie n a tio n im p lies b eing c rit
ical o f m u ch o f w h at A m eric an cu ltu re has stoo d for in th e p a s t.15
T h ere is a n o th e r factor, too. H aving been successfully m o b ilized d u rin g
th e 1960s, blacks a n d H isp an ics have b ec o m e im p o rta n t political forces in
A m erican life. T h e ir votes are to be rec k o n ed w ith, as is th e ir cap acity for
o rganized criticism o f th o se w hom they co n sid er racist. To m any, if n o t
m ost, artic u la te in tellectu als in th e black a n d H isp a n ic c o m m u n itie s, IQ
tests have been a n d are still w eapons designed to “k eep th e m in th e ir
place.” Both th ey an d th e ir allies fear (n o t co m p letely w ith o u t reason, given
th e h isto ry o f racism in th e U n ite d S tates) th a t th e p u b lic ac ce p ta n ce o f th e
v alidity o f intelligence an d ap titu d e tests can lead to retro g rad e policies,
in c lu d in g th e d ism an tlin g o f affirm ative ac tio n p ro g ram s. It is a t least
p a rtly fo r th is reaso n th a t so m e lib eral a n d b lack o rg a n iz a tio n s have
pressed for a b an o n testin g an d on research d ealin g w ith possible gen etic
d ifferences betw een e th n ic o r racial g ro u p s w ith regard to m e asu red in te l
ligence.
A re such fears justified? It is by no m ean s c e rta in th a t th e ex p e rts w ho
believe th a t genetic factors play som e role in b la c k -w h ite IQ differences are
co rrec t. A ssum ing for th e m o m e n t, however, th a t th ey are, w h at m ig h t be
th e co nsequences? N o am C h o m sk y m akes th e q u ite leg itim ate p o in t th a t a
finding th a t som e g roups have less in n a te capacity for m ak in g it in o u r
society need n o t serve as ju stifica tio n for d isc rim in a tin g ag ain st th e m o r
allow ing th e m to rem a in poor. Indeed, we m ig h t co m e to ju s t th e o p p o site
co n c lu sio n . We m ight d ecide to allocate m o re reso u rces to such g ro u p s
sim ply because o f th e ir g rea ter n e e d .16 In th is view th e asso ciatio n o f d is
c rim in a tio n w ith claim s a b o u t black in ferio rity is a h isto rical, n o t a logical,
c o n n e ctio n .
M ost ex p e rts in th e field o f intelligence an d intelligence testin g believe
th a t d isad v an tag ed in d iv id u als o r g ro u p s req u ire special assistance, n o t
th a t they sho u ld be dep riv ed o f help. O ver 60 p erc en t o f o u r ex p e rt re
sp o n d e n ts s u p p o rt stro n g affirm ative ac tio n fo r blacks a n d a larger p e rc e n t
age o f ex p erts th a n jo u rn a lis ts are strongly c o m m itte d to it. (See A p p en d ix
E, w here it ap p e ars th a t ex p e rts are b e tte r able th a n jo u rn a lis ts to reco n cile
liberal political a ttitu d e s w ith b elief in a significant IQ heritability.) A rth u r
Je n sen has always insisted th a t stu d e n ts (o f all racial an d so c io eco n o m ic
g roups) w ith low er m easu red IQ s need special assistance, th o u g h few have
p aid a tte n tio n to such sta te m en ts, so an x io u s have th ey been to a tta c k him .
255
Finally, th e possibility th a t genetic factors play som e role in m easu red
in d iv id u al or g ro u p IQ differences does n o t im ply th a t in d iv id u als sh o u ld
be trea ted o th e r th a n as u n iq u e persons. F or o n e th in g , differences am o n g
g ro u ps in m easu red IQ are sm a lle r th a n w ith in -g ro u p differences, m ak in g
tests a ra th e r in eleg an t tool for racism . M ore im p o rta n t, th e so u rce o f
in d iv id u al an d g ro u p differences in IQ is rele v an t o nly to th e q u e s tio n o f
w h at we m ay be able to do to n arro w these differentials; th a t genetic facto rs
m ay be involved lends no m o re cred en ce to th e idea th a t all blacks sh o u ld
be tre a te d alike th a n w ould be the case if IQ w ere p u rely a fu n ctio n o f the
e n v iro n m e n t.
Journ alists, Academics and the IQ Controversy
O u r w o rk d e m o n s tr a te s th a t, by a n y re a s o n a b le s ta n d a r d , m e d ia
coverage o f th e IQ controversy has been q u ite in a cc u ra te. Jo u rn a lists have
em p h asized controversy; they have rep o rted scientific d iscu ssio n s o f te c h
nical issues erro n eo u sly a n d th ey have clearly m isre p o rted th e views o f th e
relev an t scientific c o m m u n ity as to the in te ra c tio n betw een genetic an d
en v iro n m e n ta l factors in ex p lain in g differences in IQ a m o n g in d iv id u als
a n d betw een groups. O ne w ould be forced to co n c lu d e from read in g th e
n ew spapers a n d new sm agazines an d w atching television th a t only a few
m averick “ex p erts” s u p p o rt th e view th a t genetic v aria tio n plays a signifi
c a n t role in in d iv id u al o r g ro u p differences, w hile th e vast m ajo rity o f
ex p e rts believe th a t such differences are purely th e resu lt o f en v iro n m e n ta l
factors. O ne w ould also co n c lu d e th a t intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests are
hopelessly biased ag ain st m in o rities an d th e poor.
We have suggested several ex p la n a tio n s for th e m e d ia ’s failure in this
regard, in c lu d in g th e ig n o ran ce o f jo u rn a lists an d th e n a tu re o f th e new s
m e d iu m . Jo u rn a lists generally have very little u n d e rsta n d in g o f social sci
ence, especially tho se segm ents o f social science th a t involve co m p lex sta
tistics; a n d they are in terested in p ro m o tin g controversy, as we have seen.
However, n eith er o f these factors explains why. w ith such regularity, S tep
h en Jay G o u ld an d F eon K am in are presen ted as rep resen tativ e o f m a in
strea m th o u g h t in th e p ro fe ssio n , w hile th o se w h o stress th a t g en etic
elem e n ts m ay play som e role in m easu red IQ are ch a racterize d as a sm all
m in o rity w ith in th e ex p e rt co m m u n ity .
It is difficult to believe th a t e ith e r jo u rn a lists' ig n o ran ce o r th e ir p e n
c h a n t for seeking o u t contro v ersial issues explain s th e d irec tio n a lity o f
th e ir coverage o f th e testin g issues. We have suggested th a t jo u rn a lis ts an d
ed ito rs’ p erc ep tio n s o f these issues m ight play so m e role. O u r h y p o th esis is
based on prev io u s stu d ies o f journalists" views on a v ariety ot social an d
p o litical issues w hich suggest they are am o n g th e new strategic elites th a t
256
The IQ Controversy
have recently em erged in A m eric an society. T hese elites te n d to be critical
o f tra d itio n a l A m erican values, along th e lines o u tlin e d by D an iel Bell.
Jo u rn a lists perceive eq u a lity o f g ro u p o u tc o m es in in c o m e an d sta tu s as
a necessary sign o f eq u a lity o f o p p o rtu n ity ; jo u rn a lis ts are g enerally liberal
a n d co sm o p o litan , a n d so m e w h at alien a te d (cu ltu rally ) from m a in stre a m
A m erica, w hile still generally su p p o rtiv e o f cap italism . B oth th e ir view s o f
eq u a lity an d th e ir general hostility to tra d itio n a l p a tte rn s o f A m eric an
c u ltu re lead n a tio n a l jo u rn a lists to perceive th e IQ issue in a c e rta in m a n
n er an d to describe it in th e m a n n e r in w hich th ey perceive it.
T hese a ttitu d e s rep rese n t a d istin c t shift from th e m o d is o p e ra n d i o f
jo u rn a lis ts th irty years ago. As late as th e 1950s, th e m e d ia tu r n e d to th e
scientific estab lish m e n t for in fo rm a tio n a b o u t issues in w hich tech n ical
expertise played a role. Jo u rn a lists m ay n o t have been well in fo rm e d a b o u t
scientific issues, b u t th ey h ad som e clear n o tio n s o f w here to look for
answ ers. T h e 1960s ch an g ed all th a t. As J u n e G o o d field p o in ts o u t, jo u r
n alists increasingly tu rn e d to a n ti-e s ta b lis h m e n t so u rces for in fo rm a tio n
on contro v ersial scientific m a tte rs.17
In th e ir stu d y o f n u c le a r energy, R o th m a n a n d L ic h ter d e m o n stra te th a t
o th e r lead ersh ip g ro u p s look to the n a tio n a l m ed ia as th e ir key so u rce o f
in fo rm a tio n a b o u t p u b lic q u estio n s. T h e m ed ia th e re b y play an im p o rta n t
role in th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f elite an d p o p u la r a ttitu d e s, in d e p e n d e n t o f th e
th in k in g o f th e scientific c o m m u n ity or, a t least, o f th e scientific estab lish
m e n t. D isse n tin g sc ien tists, especially ac tiv ists o n th e left, receive re
spectful a tte n tio n from th e m ed ia n o m a tte r how u n re p re se n ta tiv e th e ir
views m ay b e .18 T h is in tu r n has h ad a significant im p a c t on th o se w ho
fo rm u la te policy regarding testing.
T h e influence o f th e m e d ia has increased d ram a tic ally as a resu lt o f th e
co m m u n ic a tio n s rev o lu tio n o f th e past th irty years. T h e key fac to r has
been th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f television a n d th e em erg en ce o f n a tio n a l telev i
sion netw orks. By th e early 1960s m o st A m eric an s ow ned television sets
an d w ere receiving essentially th e sam e kin d o f new s w h eth e r th ey lived in
a sm all tow n in Iowa o r in N ew Y ork City. Television b ro k e d ow n b o th
regional a n d class b o u n d arie s, an d n a tio n a liz e d th e tra n sm issio n o f in fo r
m a tio n to an ex ten t never before ch aracteristic o f A m eric an society.19
T h e w eakening o f tra d itio n a l in stitu tio n s such as n eig h b o rh o o d an d
ch u rc h , an d th e influence o f new strategic elites all c o n trib u te d to changes
in A m eric an life, a n d these changes rein fo rced each other. F o r ex am p le, in
th e past jo u rn a lis ts had m ostly co m e from w o rk in g - o r lo w e r-m id d le -c la ss
b ack g ro u n d s an d had shared th e a ttitu d e s o f these strata. By th e 1960s,
however, th e key n a tio n a l jo u rn a ls a n d television o u tle ts w ere staffed in
creasingly by in d iv id u als w ho had been ed u c ated a t elite u n iv ersities an d
257
w hose liberal a n d co sm o p o litan ideas had been fo rm ed at such in s titu
tio n s .20
Because they th in k o f th em selves as in tellectuals, an d , d esp ite som e
sk ep ticism , hold intellectu als in higher esteem th a n did ea rlier g en e ratio n s
o f jo u rn a lists, this new g en e ratio n is p roviding acad em ic a n d n o n ac ad e m ic
in tellectu als w ith o p p o rtu n itie s to reach an ever larger public.
A t th e sam e tim e, th e in te ra c tio n betw een jo u rn a lis ts a n d in tellectu als is
affecting th e universities. W hereas in the past th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f an a c a
d em ic re p u ta tio n had req u ired peer review an d p u b lic a tio n in prestigious
ac ad e m ic jo u rn a ls , o n e can now p artially bypass such tra d itio n a l p aths. In
th e social sciences, at least, a favorable review in th e N e w York T im e s o r th e
N e w York R eview o f B ooks, o r an interview on a p o p u la r television p ro
gram . is, in som e cases, a m o re significant source o f rec o g n itio n an d rew ard
th a n th a t offered by professional jo u rn a ls. T h u s, ac ad e m ic as well as n o n
ac ad e m ic in tellectu als are th em selves cau g h t u p in th e new cu ltu ral m ilieu.
C o n sequently, w hile th e n u m b e r o f p ersons a t least so m ew h at fam iliar w ith
science an d social science has grow n, th e q u ality o f th e re p o rtin g o f science
a n d social science o p en s th e d o o r to new k in d s o f d isto rtio n in th e tra n s
m ission o f n a tu ra l- an d so c ial-sc ien c e in fo rm a tio n .21
T h e te n d en c y o f rep o rters to d ra m a tiz e events, to p erso n alize th e m an d
to tra n sfo rm th e m in to stories, gives rise to an exaggerated an d in a cc u ra te
p erc ep tio n o f th e to ta l p ic tu re .22 M oreover, th e m e d ia ’s pow er to e n h a n ce
o r d e tra c t from professional re p u ta tio n s p ro b ab ly en co u rag es scien tists
a n d social scientists to ta ilo r th e ir w ork to a style th a t is m o re ap p ealin g to
th e m edia.
M o re im p o r ta n t, how ever, jo u r n a lis ts q u ite n a tu ra lly te n d to re p o rt
th o se scientific findings th a t accord w ith th e ir ow n ju d g m e n ts an d , in so
d o ing, they influence pu b lic p erc ep tio n s o f th e tr u th o f v ario u s scientific
p ro p o sitio n s. Since m o st firs t-ra n k social an d n a tu ra l scien tists p refer to
avoid conflictual social situ atio n s, they are unlikely to challenge th e m e
d ia ’s version o f th e tr u th .23
T h is is w hat seem s to have h ap p e n ed in th e are a o f in telligence an d
in telligence testing. T h e h isto ry o f racism in th e U n ite d S tates d e m a n d s
th a t an y ac ce p ta n ce o f a genetic c o m p o n e n t to m easu red intelligence be
d en ied ; in d eed , it d e m a n d s th a t th e very n o tio n o f m easu rin g intelligence
be b ro u g h t in to q u estio n . T h e new liberalism seeks th e sam e goals for
p a rtly different reasons. In th e 1960s a n d 1970s th e tw o strea m s o f th o u g h t
m erged to fo rm a pow erful in tellectu al c u rre n t o n cam p u se s a n d in th e
m ed ia, a n d it c o n tin u e s to play an im p o rta n t role.
N ew spaper an d television p erso n n el can always find p rofessors o r jo u r
n alists to w rite article s o r book review s attac k in g tra d itio n a l u n d e rsta n d
258
The IQ Controversy
ings o f in te llig en ce an d a p titu d e testin g . G iv en m e d ia coverage o f th e
issues, the c h a ra c te r o f fu n d -g ra n tin g fo u n d atio n s, an d th e m o o d o f s tu
d e n ts on college cam p u ses, only th e u n u su a lly c o m b ativ e ac ad e m ic will
ta k e an a lte rn a tiv e view. N o r can such ac ad em ics ex p ect m u ch s u p p o rt
from th e ir colleagues. T h e lack o f pu b lic p eer s u p p o rt o f H e rrn s te in an d
Je n sen is prob ab ly p artly a fu n ctio n o f a fear o n th e p a rt o f th e ir colleagues
th a t they will th em selves co m e u n d e r d irect attac k . However, th e issue is
clearly m o re com plex.
As we have seen, th e views o f m o st testin g ex p e rts are very sim ila r to
tho se expressed by H e rrn s te in a n d Je n sen . Yet th ese scien tists receive rela
tively low m ark s from th e ir professional colleagues (see C h a p te r 4, Table
4.1). Indeed, J e n s e n ’s ra tin g is slightly below th e q u ite low scores o f e n
v iro n m e n ta lists G o u ld a n d K a m in .24
H ow does o n e a c c o u n t for th is a p p a re n t p arad o x ? Several facto rs are
pro b ab ly involved. First, liberal experts, like liberal jo u rn a lists, m ay n o t be
a n x io u s to publicize evidence th a t genetic facto rs play so m e role in g ro u p
differences because they fear th e use th a t m ig h t be m a d e o f such d ata. As
su p p o rte rs o f th e new liberalism , th ey m ay believe th a t it is b etter to leave
so m e things publicly u nsaid. T h e ir goal m ay be to d o ev e ry th in g possible to
e lim in a te o r at least reduce th e size o f in te r-g ro u p differences, th ro u g h , for
exam ple, stro n g a ffirm a tiv e -a c tio n program s. In th e ir eyes, p u b lic e m p h a
sis on genetically based g ro u p differences can very well h a m p e r th e a tta in
m e n t o f such a goal.
S econd, som e o f tho se w orking in th e field m ay be an g ered by th o se w ho
publicly argue th a t genetic factors play a role in m e asu red in te r-g ro u p IQ
scores because th e pu b licizin g o f such views can h a m p e r th e ir ow n w ork. If
th ey are p ro tec ted from p u b lic scrutiny, th ey can c o n tin u e to p u rsu e th e ir
stu d ies w ith o u t h ara ssm e n t. M oreover, given th e c u rre n t clim a te o f o p in
ion, in c lu d in g th e clim a te on college cam p u ses, so m e ex p e rts m ay feel it is
best to lim it to tech n ical, professional jo u rn a ls th e p u b lic atio n o f findings
a n d c o n jec tu re s a b o u t genetic c o n trib u tio n s to in d iv id u al o r g ro u p d if
ferences. In sh o rt, they m ay be engaging in a sub tle fo rm o f self-cen so rsh ip .
G iven th e h isto ry o f racial o ppression in A m erica an d , in d eed , in th e
w orld as a w hole, o n e suspects th a t it will be a long tim e befo re th e q u estio n
o f a possible genetic c o n trib u tio n to m e asu red in tellig en ce— e ith e r b e
tw een in d iv id u als o r g ro u p s— can be discussed in a ra tio n a l a n d o p en
m an n er. F o r th e foreseeable fu tu re , th e q u estio n o f d efining an d a tte m p tin g
to m easure intelligence, as well as th e ex p lo ra tio n o f in d iv id u al an d in te r
g ro u p differences, will p ro b ab ly be discussed o nly in pro fessio n al jo u rn a ls
a n d only in the m o st ab stra ct an d tech n ical term s. In th e m e an tim e, as th e
new e n v iro n m e n ta list co n v e n tio n a l w isdom c o n tin u e s to d o m in a te th e
259
views o f th e in fo rm e d pu b lic a n d policy m akers, o n e can o nly h ope for th e
in creasing ap p e aran c e o f accu rate in fo rm a tio n in th e p u b lic sphere.
N otes
1. Daniel Bell, The Coming o f Post Industrial Society (New York: Basic Books,
1973).
2. Thus Berelson and Steiner could publish a popular inventory of what we know
about human behavior and state (without being criticized) that 75 percent of
individual differences in IQ is a function of heredity. Bernard Bereleson and
George A. Steiner, Human Behavior: An Inventory o f Scientific Findings (New
York: Harcourt. Brace and World, 1964), pp. 208-235. For a discussion of
attitudes at the turn of the century and through the 1960s, see Jonathan Har
wood. "American Academic Opinion and Social Change: Recent Develop
ments in the N ature-N urture Controversy." Oxford R eview o f Education 8
(1982):41—67.
3. S. M. Lipset, The First New Nation (New York: Basic Books, 1963).
4. See the discussion in Chapter 1.
5. See. among other sources, Edmund Leites, The Puritan Conscience and M od
ern Sexuality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986); James A. Henretta,
The Evolution o f American Society, 1700-181 5 (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath
Co., 1973).
6. On the historical dominance of liberalism in the United States see, among other
sources: Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt
Brace, 1955); S. M. Lipset, “Why No Socialism in The United States?" in
Sources o f C ontem porary R adicalism eds. Seweryn Bialer and Sophia Sluzar
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1977), pp. 31-149: S. M. Lipset. “ Radicalism or
Reformism: The Sources of Working Class Politics," American Political Science
Review 77 (1983): 1-18; Stanley Rothman. “Intellectuals and the American
Political System." in Emerging Coalitions in American Society ed. S. M. Lipset
(San Francisco: Institute for C ontem porary Studies. 1978), pp. 325-352;
Robert Middlekauf, The Glorious Cause, (New York: Oxford University Press,
1981): Lionel Trilling, The Liberal Imagination: E ssays on Literature and So
ciety (New York: Viking Press, 1950); John Patrick Diggins. The Lost Soul o f
American Politics (New York: Basic Books. 1984).
7. A. F. C. Wallace. Rockdale (N ew York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1978). p. 474.
8. Leo Lowenthal. "Biographies in Popular Magazines.” in R adio Research,
1942-43 eds. Paul Lazarsfeld and F Stanton (New York: Duell. Sloan and
Pearce, 1944). pp. 507-548.
9. The data in this and the next few paragraphs is derived from Bell: The National
Center for Educational Statistics. Digest o f Educational Statistics (Washington.
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982); The S tatistical Abstract o f the
United States (Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942, 1975,
1985 and 1987) U.S. D epartment of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. H istor
ical Statistics o f the U.S.: Colonial Tim es to the Present (Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 1975).
10. Eric F. Goldman, The Tragedy o f Lyndon Johnson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
1969). See also Everett C. Ladd. Jr.. “The New Lines are Drawn: Class and
260
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
The IQ Controversy
Ideology in America,” parts I and II, Public Opinion 1 (July/August 1978);48—
53, and (September/October 1978): 14-20; Byron E. Shafer, “The New Cultural
Politics,” PS 18 (Spring 1985):221—231; B. Bruce Briggs, ed.. The New Class
(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press, 1979): Ronald Inglehart, The Silent
Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Am ong Western Publics (Prin
ceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977); Robert N. Bellah et al., H abits o f
the Heart: Individualism and C om m itm ent in American Life (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1985); Daniel Yankelovich, Searching fo r S elf
Fulfillment in a World Turned U pside Down (New York: Random House,
1981).
James Thomas Barry, Social Origins an d Values o f K now ledge-B ased E lites in
Contem porary Society (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of
New York at Buffalo, 1977).
Lichter et al., The M edia Elite.
Bell traces the roots of these attitudes to the growth of modernism in nineteenth
century Europe with its anti-bourgeois overtones.
Rothman and Lichter, Roots o f R adicalism .
Stanley R othm an, “A merican Intellectuals,” The W orld an d I (January
1987):555—565; Paul H ollander, The M a n y F aces o f S o c ia lism (New
Brunswick. NJ: Transaction Press.1983). pp. 253-349. The current public dis
course on the need to make American industry more competitive has in no way
changed these understandings.
Noam Chomsky, “The Fallacy of Richard H errnstein’s IQ,” Social Policy 3
(May/June 1972): 19—25. Chomsky’s view could derive support from the argu
ments advanced by John Rawls in A Theory o f Justice (Cambridge, MA: Har
vard University Press, 1971).
June Goodfield, Reflections on Science and the M edia (Washington, DC: Amer
ican Association for the Advancement of Science, 1981).
See Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, “Elite Ideology and Risk Percep
tion in Nuclear Energy Policy,” American Political Science Review 81 (June
1987):383—404. For a contrasting view, see Science in the Streets, Report of the
Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Com munication of Scientific Risk
(New York: Priority Press. 1984).
Lichter et al.. The M edia E lite ; Stanley Rothman, “The Mass Media in Post
Industrial Society” in The Third Century: America as a Post Industial Society,
ed. S. M. Lipset (Stanford University, CA: Hoover Institute Press. 1979), pp.
345-368.
Rothman, “Mass Media;” Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter, M edia Elite.
See, for example. Russell Seitz, “In From the Cold: Nuclear W inter Melts
Down,” The N ational Interest 5 (Fall 1986):3—17.
D. L. Altheide and R.P. Snow, M edia Logic( Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publica
tions, 1979); Michael J. O ’Neill Terrorist Spectaculars: Should TV Coverage be
Curbed'/ {New York: Priority Press, 1986).
Ann Roe. “The Psychology of the Scientist,” Science 134 (1961 ):456—459.
The very large difference between the proportion of respondents rating Jensen
as compared to Gould and Kamin makes the comparison somewhat problem
atic.
Appendix A
Chronology o f Important Publications
and Events in the IQ Controversy
1859
C harles D arw in, O rigin o f Species
1869
F rancis G a lto n , H ere d ita ry G enius
1884
G a lto n o p e n s A n th r o p o m e tric L a b o ra to ry a t I n te r n a tio n a l
H ealth E x h ib itio n in L on d o n
1890
C attell, “ M ental Tests a n d M e asu rem en ts’’
1895
A lfred B inet a n d V ictor H en ri, “ La Psychologie In d iv id u e lle”
1899
Stella S harp, “ In d iv id u al Psychology: A S tu d y in Psychological
M e th o d ”
1901
C lark W issler, “T h e C o rre la tio n o f M ental a n d Physical Tests”
1904
C h a rles S p e a rm a n , “ G e n e ra l In tellig en ce O b jectiv ely D e te r
m in e d an d M e asu red ”
1905
B inet a n d T h eo d o re S im o n publish first in telligence scale
1908
B inet a n d S im on revise intelligence scale
1910
H. H. G o d d a rd tra n sla te s 1908 B inet-S im on scale in to E nglish
for use in th e U n ite d States
1916
L ew is T e rm a n p u b lis h e s S ta n fo rd R e v isio n o f B in e t-S im o n
scale
1917
A rth u r O tis develops g ro u p intelligence test
19181919
A rm y A lpha an d B eta tests a d m in iste re d to 1,726,966 recru its
d u rin g W orld W ar I
1921
R e p o rt o f A rm y test results in d icates low er in telligence for im
m ig ra n ts an d blacks, a n d average m e n ta l age o f th irte e n
am o n g all recruits
19221923
L ip p m a n n -T e rm an d eb ate in th e N e w R ep u b lic
1923
C arl B righam , A S tu d y o f A m e ric a n Intellig en ce
F ran k F re em a n , “A R e feren d u m o f Psychologists”
261
262
The IQ Controversy
1926
College E n tran c e E x am in atio n B oard in tro d u c e s SAT
1928
B arbara B urks’ study o f IQ h eritab ility in ad o p ted ch ild ren
1935
L. L. T h u rsto n e , T h e le cto rs o f M in d
1937
T erm an an d M errill publish revision o f S tan fo rd -B in et
N ew m a n , F re em a n , a n d H olzinger, Twins: A S tu d y o f H e re d ity
a n d E n viro n m e n t
1939
D avid W echsler, T he M e a su re m e n t o f A d u lt In tellig en ce
19 4 1 .
A rm y G en eral C lassification Test a d m in iste re d to m o re th a n
n in e m illion recru its in W orld W ar II
1945
1956
F ra n k M c G u rk , “ Psychological Tests— A Scientist's R e p o rt on
R ace D ifferences” an d reply by eig h teen social scien tists in
U.S. N ew s a n d W orld R eport
1958
A udrey Shuey, T h e T esting o f N egro In tellig en ce
1961
J. McV. F lunt, Intellig en ce a n d E xp e rie n ce
S ociety for th e Psychological S tudy o f Social Issues (SPSSI) c e n
sures H en ry G a rre tt for criticizin g “ e q u a lita ria n d o g m a ” o f
no genetic g ro u p differences
1962
B anesh H offm an, T h e T yranny o f T esting
1964
B e n ja m in B loom , S ta b ility a n d C h a n g e in H u m a n C h a ra c
teristics
D w ight Ingle, "R ac ial D ifferences a n d th e F u tu re ”
1967
H obson v. H a n sen
1968
A ssociation o f Black Psychologists (A B P) calls for a m o ra to riu m
on sta n d ard iz ed tests
W estinghouse L ea rn in g C o rp o ra tio n re p o rt o n IQ gains in H ea d
S tart
1969
A rth u r Je n sen , “ H ow M u ch C an We Boost IQ a n d S cholastic
A ch iev em en t?”
N e w York T im e s M a g a zin e “je n s e n is m ” article
SPSSI c o n d e m n s Jen sen
B ow doin C ollege d ro p s SAT re q u ire m e n t
1970
A m erican A nth ro p o lo g ical A ssociatio n (A A A ) calls Je n sen a
racist
1971
R ich a rd H e rrn s te in , “ I.Q.”
N atio n al A cadem y o f Sciences refuses W illiam S h o ck ley ’s re
q u est to fu n d research o n g ro u p differences in intelligence
AAA calls H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , a n d S hockley “ racist, sexist, an d
an ti-w o rk in g class”
G riggs v, D u k e Power Co. L a r r y P. v. W ilson R ile s filed
1972
N a tio n a l E d u ca tio n A ssociation (N E A ) calls for a m o ra to riu m
o n sta n d ard iz ed testing
Appendix A
263
U .S. S enate Select C o m m itte e on E qual E d u ca tio n a l O p p o r
tu n ity c a n c e ls p la n n e d h e a rin g s o n " E n v ir o n m e n t, I n te l
l i g e n c e , ‘a n d S c h o l a s t i c A c h i e v e m e n t ” b e c a u s e o f
co ntroversial n a tu re o f topic
1973
L eon K am in p o in ts o u t discrepancies in C yril B u rt’s tw in d a ta
1974
K am in , T he S cience a n d Politics o f IQ
E d u ca tio n a l R ights an d P rivacy A ct passed
1975
CBS News, T he IQ M y th
E d u ca tio n for All E landicapped C h ild ren A ct passed
A m erican Psychological A ssociation panel on testin g issues its
rep o rt
1976
B urt scandal b ecom es p ublic
1977
W irtz p anel re p o rt on decline in SAT scores
1979
L. S. Elearnshaw , C yril B urt: P sychologist
L a rry P. decision
N ew York S tate passes tru th -in -te stin g law
F T C releases re p o rt on co ach in g fo r th e SAT
1980
A llan N a irn an d associates, T h e R eign o f E T S
Je n sen . B ias in M e n ta l T esting
P A SE v. H an n o n
1981
S tephen Jay G o u ld , T h e M ism e a su r e o f M a n
C o n sen t decree e lim in a te s P rofessional a n d A d m in istra tiv e C a
reer E x a m in a tio n (PACE)
1982
N atio n al R esearch C o u n cil C o m m itte e on A bility Testing issues
its re p o rt
1984
L a rry P. decision u p h eld on appeal
1985
H arv ard B usiness S chool d ro p s G M A T
Jo h n s H o p k in s M edical S chool d ro p s M CAT
FairTest fo rm ed
1986
P eckham directive b a n n in g a d m in istra tio n o f in telligence tests
to black ch ild ren referred for special ed u c a tio n in C a lifo rn ia
p u b lic schools
1987
M ary A m aya in fo rm ed th a t h er son, D em o n d C raw ford, c a n n o t
be given an intelligence test
U.S. Civil R ights C o m m issio n begins to g ath er facts ab o u t th e
C raw ford case
Appendix B
Principal-Com ponent and M ultivariate A nalyses
o f Q uestionnaire Data
P rincipal— C o m p o n en t A n a lysis
In o rd er to facilitate fu rth e r responding, superv ariab les w ere created
from su b stan tiv e q u estio n responses via p rin c ip a l-c o m p o n e n t analysis.
F o rm a tio n o f th e c o rre la tio n m a trix used as in p u t for th is analysis necessi
ta te d th e e lim in a tio n o r recoding o f m an y q u estio n s. T h ere were fo u r
criteria for q u e stio n elim in a tio n : (1) if q u e stio n s c o n ta in e d m o re th a n two
n o m in a l response categories an d were th u s n o t am en a b le to c o rrela tio n a l
analysis (e.g., q u estio n s 17 a n d 18 on th e sources o f g ro u p differences in
IQ ); (2) if th e re w as g re a te r th a n 25 p e rc e n t n o n re s p o n s e ra te (e.g.,
h eritab ility estim ates, an d validity ju d g m e n ts for all ad m issio n s tests b u t
th e SAT an d G R E ); (3) if q u e stio n s w ere ju d g e d n o t to be ce n tral to general
views on testin g (ratings o f n o n co n tro v e rsial au th o rs); a n d (4) if in clu sio n
w ould have u nnecessarily co m p lic ate d th e analysis (q u estio n s 3 a n d 4 on
elem e n ts o f intelligence). In ad d itio n , th e five sou rces o f h eritab ility ev i
d en ce in q u estio n 9 w ere c o m b in e d to fo rm o n e scale c o rresp o n d in g to the
n u m b e r o f sources checked. T h e final pool o f item s su b jected to p rin c ip a lc o m p o n e n t analysis c o n ta in e d th irty -n in e q u estio n s, w hich in clu d ed all
th o se from the first four sections o f th e q u e stio n n a ire a n d th e a u th o r ra t
ings n o t e lim in a te d by one o f th e selection criteria. Before th e co rrela tio n
m atrix was fo rm e d , answ ers to all q u estio n s w ere n o rm alize d , an d m issing
values w ere set equal to zero. Each cell o f th e m atrix th u s co n ta in e d a
co rre la tio n coefficient based on 661 cases. T h e in clu sio n o f m issing values
cod ed as th e m ean o f th e rem a in in g cases reduces th e o b ta in e d co rrela tio n
coefficients. T he e lim in a tio n o f all q u e stio n s w ith g reater th a n 25 p erc en t
n o n resp o n se rate was in te n d ed to m in im iz e th is pro b lem .
P rin c ip a l-c o m p o n e n t analysis w ith V arim ax ro ta tio n w as p erfo rm ed on
th e c o rre la tio n m a trix resulting from the recoded an d strea m lin ed su b sta n
tive q u estio n s. F o u r in te rp re ta b le factors em erged from th is analysis, ac
c o u n tin g for 12.1%, 11.3%, 9.2%, an d 6.3% o f th e variance. T h ey w ere
265
266
The IQ Controversy
labeled “ Test U sefu ln e ss,” “ Test B ias,” “ P erso n al C h a ra c te ristic s,” an d
“ Test M isuse.” Q u estio n s w ith su b stan tia l loadings ( > 0.3 o r < — 0.3) for
each factor are presen ted in Table B -l. T h e first facto r revealed th e follow
ing p a tte rn : b elief in a co n sen su s a b o u t intelligence, in an a d e q u a te th e o ry
o f intelligence, an d in th e im p o rta n c e o f IQ in d e te rm in in g SES; o p p o si
tio n to tr u th - in - te s tin g laws, an d p articu la rly high loadings for all test
uses. T h e su b stan tia l loadings for facto r tw o w ere alm o st en tirely for th e
v ario u s test bias q u estio n s. U n d e r factor three, all o f th e n o n in te lle ctu al
ch aracteristics in q u estio n 8 a n d high loadings, as d id th e sectio n s o f q u e s
tio n s 16 d ealing w ith bias caused by an x iety a n d m o tiv atio n . T h e fo u rth
facto r picked up all fo u r sources o f te st m isuse (q u estio n 19) th a t were
in c lu d ed in th e analysis. T h e on ly q u e stio n s th a t d id n o t load on an y o f th e
fo u r factors w ere n u m b e rs 5, 6, a n d 9 (on ac q u ired know ledge, stability,
a n d sources o f h eritab ility evidence).
S uperv ariab les w ere fo rm e d c o rresp o n d in g to each o f th e fo u r factors.
N o rm a liz e d v ariables w ere co m b in ed using a w eighting system su ch th a t
o n ly variables lo ad in g w ith an ab so lu te value g rea ter th a n 0.3 o n a given
fac to r w ere co m b in ed to fo rm th e c o rresp o n d in g su p erv ariab le, positiveloading variables being ad d e d a n d negative-load in g v ariab les su b tracted .
Q u estio n s w ith loadings o f ab so lu te value g rea ter th a n 0.6 w ere given d o u
ble w eight. M issing values w ere coded as zero a n d in c lu d ed in th e su p er
variables.
M u lti varíate— A n alysis
Stepw ise m u ltip le regression analyses w ere p e rfo rm e d w ith each o f th e
su p erv ariab les as d e p e n d e n t variables, an d th e d e m o g ra p h ic an d b ac k
g ro u n d variables as pred icto rs. T able B-2 show s th e best fitting c o m b in a
tio n o f p red ic to rs for each o f th e fo u r su p ervariab les, in th e o rd e r in w hich
they loaded, as well as th e p ro p o rtio n o f v arian ce (R 2) th u s ac c o u n te d for.
M o re d etailed regression resu lts (co efficien ts, p a rtia l c o rre la tio n s , etc.)
w ould be relatively m eaningless in light o f th e very low v arian ce ac co u n ted
for, a n d are th e re fo re o m itted .
Appendix B
267
TABLE B-l
Factors Underlying Substantive Question Responding
Factor
1. Test Usefulness
27.
Use in college admissions
27.
Use in graduate and professional school admissions
27.
Use in tracking decisions
27.
Use in vocational counseling
27.
Use in diagnosis and special education
24.
GRE validity
24.
SAT validity
22.
Use for white EMR placement
23.
Use for black EMR placement
25.
Opposition to truth-in-testing
2.
Belief in adequate theory of intelligence
6.
Importance of IQ as determ inant of SES
1.
Belief in consensus about definition of intelligence
Respect for Jensen's work on intelligence
II. Test Bias
14.
General racial bias
15. General economic bias
13.
Racial content bias
16.
Race of the examiner as bias
16.
Language of the examiner as bias
16.
Attitude of the examiner as bias
12.
Improper standardization as bias
20.
Effect of teacher’s knowledge of test score
Respect for Jensen’s work on intelligence
21.
Effect of student’s knowledge of test score
16.
Anxiety as bias
Motivation as bias
16.
10.
Sufficient evidence for white heritability estimate
Loading
.80
.77
.69
.64
.62
.61
.59
.44
.40
.40
.36
.35
.34
.33
.76
.71
.66
.60
.57
.53
.47
.45
- .4 5
.44
.41
.40
- .3 3
III. Personal Characteristics
8.
Importance of emotional ability to test performance
8.
Importance of physical health to test performance
8.
Importance of persistence to test performance
8.
Importance of anxiety to test performance
8.
Importance of achievement motivation to test performance
8.
Importance of attentiveness to test performance
16.
Motivation as bias
16.
Anxiety as bias
.74
.71
.70
.68
.66
.60
.49
.45
IV. Test Misuse
19.
Improper intelligence-achievement test comparison
19.
Improper between-student score comparison
19.
Invalid test use
19.
Test adm inistration under improper conditions
.81
.80
.73
.48
268
The IQ Controversy
TABLE B-2
Results of Multiple Regression Analyses Between Supervariables
and Demographic and Background Variables.
Dependent
Variable
Independent Variables“
R2
Test Usefulness
Political Perspective + Age + General
Expertise + Gender
Test Bias
Political Perspective + Gender + Media Source
Personal Characteristics Gender + General Expertise + Media Source
Test Misuse
Political Perspective + Gender + Age
.18
.19
.06
.05
« In d e p e n d en t v ariab les are listed in th e o rd e r in w hich th e y loaded in to th e regression e q u a tio n
Appendix C
Content A nalysis M ethodology
S a m p le
T h e sam p le for th e c o n te n t analysis in clu d es th e th ree m a jo r n atio n al
new sw eeklies {T im e, N ew sw ee k, U.S. N ew s a n d W orld R e p o rt), th e th ree
co m m ercial television netw orks (ABC, CBS, N B C ),1 an d th e N ew York
T im e s , th e W ashington Post, a n d th e Wall S treet Journal. T h e analysis
in clu d es articles p u b lish ed an d television new s p ro g ra m s b ro ad c ast d u rin g
th e fifteen years betw een Ja n u a ry 1, 1969,2 an d D ecem b er 31, 1983, th e last
co m p lete year for w hich new s indices w ere available at th e tim e th is an a ly
sis w as begun.
W ith in each source, th e analysis includes all articles a n d b ro ad c ast seg
m e n ts u ncovered by a search o f th e a p p ro p ria te indices (in d iv id u al indices
for each new spaper, th e R e a d e r ’s G u id e to P eriodical L ite ra tu re for new s
m ag azin es, a n d v a rio u s a rc h iv al so u rces for th e te lev isio n b ro a d c a sts)3
using th e search te rm s “ Intelligence te stin g ,” “ IQ ,” “A p titu d e te stin g ,” “A d
m issions te stin g ,” “ SAT,” a n d “ E m p lo y m en t te stin g ,” as well as o th e r ca te
gories such as “ S ch o o ls,” “ M en tal tests,” “ E d u ca tio n a l te sts,” an d “A bility
te sts,” to w hich th e original search item s m ay have led. T h e follow ing types
o f articles a n d b ro ad c asts w ere excluded:
•
•
•
•
•
T h o se obviously n o t relevant to th e IQ controv ersy (e.g., th o se listed
u n d e r “ Intellig en ce,” dealin g w ith th e CIA).
T h o se d ea lin g w ith e d u c a tio n o r e d u c a tio n a l policy h av in g little o r
n o th in g to d o w ith testing (e.g., d iscussions o f th e C o lem a n re p o rt on
eq ual o p p o rtu n ity in ed u c a tio n , affirm ative ac tio n in adm issions).
T hose d ealing only w ith ach ie v em e n t testin g (e.g., read in g scores, m in i
m u m co m p ete n cy testing).
T h o se d ealing o nly w ith ad m issio n s tests o th e r th a n th e SAT.4
A dvertisem ents.
T h e to ta l n u m b e r o f articles a n d b ro ad c ast segm ents an aly zed from each
so u rce is listed in Table 6.1.
269
270
The IQ Controversy
C o d in g
T h e coding schem e for th e p resen t analysis is h ierarch ical. In read in g
th ro u g h p r in t a rtic le s a n d e x a m in in g te lev isio n b ro a d c a sts, it w as d is
covered th a t th e relev an t in fo rm a tio n co n ta in e d in th ese sources co u ld be
classified in to th irte e n categories, c o rresp o n d in g to g eneral issues o f c o n
cern w ithin th e IQ controversy. T h e code sheets w ere th erefo re set u p so
th a t coders first decid ed w hich o f th e categories (Issues) was p resen t, a n d
th e n m oved to in d iv id u a l co d e sheets c o n ta in in g m o re specific ite m s
w ith in each Issue. T h u s, for exam ple, a co d e r m ig h t d ecide th a t an article
d ea lt w ith th e Issue o f “ G ro u p D ifferences in IQ.” H aving co d ed th is in fo r
m a tio n on the G en e ra l C ode S heet, the co d e r w ould m ove to th e In d iv id u a l
Issue C o d e Sheet c o rre sp o n d in g to th is Issue an d co d e th e a rtic le ’s c o n te n t
o n m o re specific item s like th e presence o f bias in tests o r th e p o ssibility o f
a genetic c o m p o n e n t to th e black-w hite difference in IQ.
T h e G en e ra l C o d e Sheet, w hich c o n ta in s th e list o f possible Issues c o n
sidered, is d ivided in to th ree sections. T h e first asks for basic in fo rm a tio n
a b o u t th e article o r bro ad cast, such as source, d ate, length, lo c atio n , an d
type (e.g., fea tu re article, b o o k review, ed ito rial, o r le tte r to th e e d ito r for
p rin t m edia; a n c h o rm a n story, re p o rte r story, o r c o m m e n ta ry /e d ito ria l for
television). T h e second section is th e list o f Issues co n sid ered . C o d ers w ere
in stru c ted to read th e article o r view th e v id eo tap e at least o n ce before
b eg in n in g to code, a n d th e n to refer back to th e so u rce as necessary. A fter
rec o rd in g basic in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e artic le o r b ro ad c ast in th e first sec
tio n o f th e G en e ra l C o d e S heet, th e co d e r had to d ecid e on th e Issue o r
Issues covered by th e item being coded. AH Issues covered w ere to be
recorded. T h e th irte e n Issues listed fall in to fo u r in d e p e n d e n t categories;
IQ a n d A p titu d e T esting (Issues I-VII), SAT (V III-X I), E m p lo y m en t T esting
(X II), a n d Intelligence a n d A p titu d e T esting O u tsid e th e U .S. (X III). T h e
first th ree categories refer only to tests given to U .S. p o p u la tio n s. T h e
th irte e n Issues w ere described to th e coders as follows:
I. The Nature o f Intelligence-. Discussion of intelligence itself, not merely as it
is measured by intelligence tests. Topics to look for: the definition of intel
ligence, general intelligence (g). multi-factorial intelligence, mental speed,
non-test measures of intelligence (e.g., physiological measures and reaction
time).
II. What Intelligence Tests M easure : Be sure the article or broadcast deals
with intelligence or general aptitude tests, and not only the SAT or em ploy
ment tests or testing outside the U.S.. which should be coded separately.
Discussion of achievement or competency testing should be excluded from
coding. Topics to look for: test reliability and validity; tests as measures of
innate potential, learning, or memory; ambiguous or poorly constructed test
Appendix C
271
questions; and the importance of nonintellectual factors to test performance.
This category does not include bias in testing.
III. The Usefulness o f IQ: Here the issue is not what tests measure, but what
they can be used for. Topics to look for: tests as predictors of school perfor
mance or social status, as decision making tools (other than in employment),
as indicators of the quality of schooling, the importance of IQ as a determ i
nant of eventual social status.
IV. Test Misuse: Criticisms of the way tests are used. Criticisms of test content
fall under the heading of “What intelligence tests measure.” Topics to look
for: mislabeling, misclassification. and stigmatization as a result of test
scores, overreliance on testing, and teacher expectancies based on test scores.
V. The H eritability o f IQ: Discussions of heredity versus environment in
intelligence. Do not check this alternative as an issue considered i f the article
or broadcast deals only with the heritability o f the black-white or other group
differences in IQ. Besides inheritance, this issue also includes discussions of
the effects of compensatory education (e.g.. Head Start, early intervention, or
other enriched environments) on IQ.
VI. Group Differences in IQ: Discussion of IQ differences between racial or
socioeconomic groups, including possible genetic influences. Also, any dis
cussion of cultural bias in intelligence tests, including claims about tests
being geared to white, middle-class test takers. Also, this issue should be
checked for any mention of gender differences in intelligence test scores.
VII. Other Issues Concerning Herrnstein. Jensen, or Shockley: Statements
concerning Richard Herrnstein, A rthur Jensen, or William Shockley that are
not codeable elsewhere. Most statements attributed to or describing these
authors will be codeable under other categories (e.g., statem ents about
heritability attributed to Herrnstein. should be coded under “Heritability of
Intelligence.”). This category refers to statements such as “Jensen has been
the subject of much abuse because of his views," or “Shockley believes that
blacks are innately inferior to whites” (note that there is no mention of
intelligence here). Do not check this category if all statements pertaining to
Herrnstein. Jensen, or Shockley are codeable elsewhere.
VIII. The M eaning o f SAT Scores: Essentially the same as “W hat Intelligence
Tests Measure,” except dealing with the SAT. Also includes discussions of
changes in average SAT scores over tim e and truth-in-testing legislation
(“sunshine” laws).
IX. SAT Use and Misuse: “The Usefulness of IQ” and “Test Misuse” com
bined into one category and applied to the SAT. Topics to look for: the SAT as
a predictor of college performance, and the use of admissions tests in general.
X. SAT Coaching: Discussion of the effects of SAT coaching courses and
software on SAT scores and on education. Articles or broadcasts that talk
about coaching as a challenge to the claim that the SAT measures aptitude
should also be coded under "The Meaning o f SAT Scores."
XI. Group Differences in SAT Score: “Group Differences in IQ” applied to
272
The IQ Controversy
the SAT. Includes bias and genetic effects, as well as gender differences in SAT
scores.
XII. Em ploym ent Testing'. The use of intelligence and aptitude testing in
hiring, placement, and promotion decisions in employment. Includes issues
of test validity, and cultural bias in employment tests. Discussions o f IQ as a
predictor o f jo b performance, with no mention o f the use o f such tests in
em ploym ent decisions, should be coded under “The Usefulness o f IQ, ” not
under this category.
XIII. Intelligence an d A ptitude Testing O utside the U.S.: Any mention of
intelligence or intelligence, aptitude, or em ployment testing outside the
United States. A separate Individual Issue Code Sheet should be completed
for each country discussed in the article or broadcast. This category does not
include testing o f foreign-born or ethnic Am ericans (which should be coded
under “G roup Differences”), only testing that actually takes place outside the
U.S.
T h e th ird section o f th e G en e ra l C ode Sheet asks co d ers to m ak e tw o
sim ple subjective ju d g m e n ts as to the general to n e o f th e article regarding
testin g an d th e h eritab ility o f intelligence. As th ese tw o ju d g m e n ts are th e
least objective p a r t o f th e coding schem e, coders w ere p ro v id ed w ith th e
follow ing set o f in stru ctio n s:
T h e co d e r is here asked to m ake a subjectiv e ju d g m e n t o f th e overall
stan ce ta k en in the article o r b ro ad c ast w ith regard to tra d itio n a l fo r m s o f
te stin g a n d th e issue o f th e h eritab ility o f intelligence.
The decision to label an article or broadcast pro-testing , anti-testing, or neu
tral should be based on the preponderance of comments made about testing.
Only if it is clear that most of the com ments are either pro- or anti-testing
should a category other than neutral be checked. It is not necessary for every
statement in the article or broadcast to be pro- or anti-testing, only a clear
preponderance.
Similarly, the decision to label an article or broadcast’s stance toward the
issue of heritability of intelligence as learned, innate, or neutral should be
based on the preponderance of comments made about heritability. If the
general tone of the article or broadcast either clearly disagrees with the theory
that intelligence is largely inherited or clearly agrees that intelligence is
largely learned, then learned should be checked. The article or broadcast
does not have to make an explicit statement that intelligence is learned in
order for learned to be checked. Alternatively, if the general tone of the article
or broadcast either clearly disagrees with the theory that intelligence is largely
learned or agrees that intelligence is largely inherited, then innate should be
checked. Again, an article or broadcast does not have to make an explicit
statement that intelligence is inherited in order for innate to be checked.
The critical questions the coder should be asking here are the following: What
is the overall picture of testing the article or broadcast dos not have to make
Appendix C
273
an explicit statement that intelligence is learned in order for learned to be
checked.
The critical questions the coder should be asking here are the following: What
is the overall picture of testing the article or broadcast presents to the reader?
Is it clearly positive or negative? What is the overall attitude concerning the
heritability of intelligence? Is it clearly that intelligence is learned or innate?
Assume all articles and broadcasts are neutral unless it is clear to you that
they are otherwise.
Follow ing c o m p letio n o f th e G en e ra l C ode Sheet, co d ers m ove to In d i
v id u al Issue C o d e S heets c o rresp o n d in g to each o f th e Issues co n sid ered by
th e article o r b ro ad c ast being coded. T h e Ind iv id u al Issue C ode Sheets
co n sist o f series o f positio n sta te m e n ts related to th e Issue at h an d . F or
ex am ple, th e “ Test M isuse” C ode Sheet c o n ta in s six sta te m en ts, including:
1. S tu d en ts are often m isclassified, m islabeled, o r stig m atized on th e basis
o f intelligence test scores.
4. T h e use o f tests creates a n arro w set o f e d u c a tio n a l objectives.
6. Test scores are overrelied u p o n (are to o im p o rta n t in p eo p le’s lives).
F or each sta te m e n t, th e co d e r m u st m ak e an initial ju d g m e n t o f w h eth e r
th e p ositio n is in an y way rep rese n ted in th e article o r b ro ad cast being
coded. If it is not, th e sta te m e n t is coded as N o t M e n tio n e d (N M ). If th e
p o sitio n is rep resen ted , it m ight be su p p o rte d , rejected, o r b o th . T hese
possibilities are coded as Positive (Pos), N egative (Neg), o r b o th . An article
w hose only m e n tio n o f th e stig m atiza tio n issue is o f th e fo rm “ M an y critics
have called IQ tests stig m atizin g ” w ould receive a Pos co d e for item 1,
above. If th e a rtic le c o n tin u e d “ O th ers disagree,” it w ould also receive a
N eg code. Sim ilarly, sta te m e n ts o f th e type “ T h ere is a d eb a te (controversy)
over th e stig m atizin g effects o f IQ ” w ould also receive b o th Pos a n d N eg
codes, because “d e b a te ” im plies th a t th e re are at least tw o sides. F or so m e
o f th e sta te m en ts on som e o f th e In d iv id u al Issue C ode Sheets, th e re are
m o re o p tio n s th a n sim ply Pos o r Neg. Item 1 on th e “ H erita b ility o f
In tellig en ce” Sheet reads:
1. T h e h eritab le c o m p o n e n t o f (genetic influence o n ) intelligence, as m e a
su red bv intelligence tests is:
(N M ).
to tal (no m e n tio n o f en v iro n m e n ta l d e te rm in a tio n , o r e n v iro n
m en tal d e te rm in a tio n ruled out).
significant (in clu d in g en v iro n m e n ta l d e te rm in a tio n ).
insignificant o r n o n ex isten t.
274
The IQ Controversy
A n artic le o r b ro ad c ast th a t addresses th e q u estio n o f h eritab ility m ay
receive an y o n e o r a n y c o m b in a tio n o f th e fo u r n o n -N M codes.
It is possible for an Issue such as “T h e N a tu re o f In tellig en ce” to be d ealt
w ith in an article o r b ro ad c ast, w hile n o n e o f th e specific p o sitio n s p re
sen ted on th e In d iv id u al Issue C o d e S heet are m e n tio n e d . In d eed , it is
possible for an Issue to be only briefly m e n tio n e d in an artic le o r b ro ad c ast.
In cases such as these, th e a p p ro p ria te Issue(s) are ch eck ed o n th e G en e ra l
C o d e S heet, a n d all sta te m e n ts on th e In d iv id u a l Issue C o d e Sheet(s) are
co d ed as N M .
F or each re p re se n ta tio n o f a given p o sitio n (Pos, N eg, o r so m e o th e r
o p tio n ), th e co d e r is to in d ic ate th e source o r so u rces for th a t re p re se n ta
tio n . T h ere a re eight possible source codes, d escrib ed to th e co d ers as
follows:
1. A sse rtio n or im plication. I f a p o sitio n is sim p ly asserted o r im p lied by
th e a u th o r o f th e article o r by an a n c h o rm a n , rep o rter, o r c o m m e n ta to r
in a b ro ad c ast w ith no reference to a n o th e r in d iv id u a l o r group, th e
n u m b e r 1 sh o u ld be w ritte n in the a p p ro p ria te space o n th e co d e sheet.
O n e o f th e m o re difficult decisions you will have to m ak e involves
p o sitio n s th a t are im p lied b u t n o t stated by th e a u th o r o r broadcaster.
T h e re is no easy so lu tio n to th is p ro b lem ; you have to use y o u r ow n
ju d g m e n t as to w h eth e r th e im p lica tio n is clear. D o n o t co d e an im p lic a
tio n unless you are certain th a t th e a u th o r o r b ro a d c a ste r is im p ly in g
som eth in g .
2. S in g le expert. If the positio n is a ttrib u te d to a single ex p e rt o th e r th a n
H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , o r Shockley, th e n u m b e r 2 sh o u ld be w ritten , along
w ith th e n am e o f th e ex p e rt an d his o r h e r affiliation (e.g., psychology
p rofessor at C olum bia). F or o u r p urposes, an exp ert is a n y in d iv id u a l
w ith a p ro fessio n a l label or a ffiliation related to te stin g (i.e. an ed u cato r,
psychologist, o r geneticist, n o t ju s t a stu d e n t, high school teacher, law
yer, ju d g e, o r g o v e rn m e n t official). S ta te m e n ts o r research a ttrib u te d to
m o re th a n o n e in d iv id u al sh o u ld be coded as 2 if th e n am e o f each
in d iv id u al is given; otherw ise, code as 3.
3. S o m e ex p erts or specific exp ert group or o rg a n iza tio n . In clu d es sta te
m e n ts like “ m a n y psychologists believe . . .
o r “A n APA re p o rt c o n
cludes . . I n th e la tte r case be sure to specify “APA” in a d d itio n to
w riting dow n th e n u m b e r 3. Be c e rta in th a t th e sta te m e n t o r o p in io n is
a ttrib u te d to th e o rg an iz atio n as a w hole, a n d n o t ju s t to a p a rtic u la r
m em b er. A lso, sp e cific ally d e lin e a te d e x p e rt g ro u p s su ch as “ te st
m akers” fall u n d e r this category.
4. M o st or all experts. In clu d es sta te m e n ts like “ M ost social scien tists
believe . . . or “T h e general feeling am o n g psychologists i s . . . ” T h ere
sho u ld be no need to specify a p a rtic u la r g ro u p here, as th e reference
sh o u ld clearly p e rta in to m o st o r all experts.
Appendix C
275
5, 6, an d 7. H errnstein. Jensen, a n d S h o ckley. T h is sh o u ld be self-explan
atory.
.
8. O ther. A ny a ttrib u tio n th a t does n o t fall u n d e r 1-7 above, in clu d in g
p o litical o rg an izatio n s, e th n ic groups, g o v ern m e n t agencies, an d p u b lic
o p in io n . W hen coding an 8. he sure to sp e cify th e source.
It is possible for any given rep rese n tatio n o f a positio n to be a ttrib u te d to
m o re th a n one source. T h u s, an article on racial differences in test scores
m ight cite a n u m b e r o f sources claim in g th a t tests are biased.
C o d ers w ere in stru c ted to try very h ard to fit each source in to on e o f th e
ex isting categories before using O thers. In such cases, as w ith Single E x
p e rts an d S om e E xperts, co d ers provide a w ritten d escrip tio n o f th e p a r
tic u la r source in a d d itio n to p roviding th e source code. T h e in c lu sio n o f
se p arate source codes for H e rrn s te in , Je n sen , a n d Shockley, like th e in c lu
sio n o f an Issue specific to th e m , reflects th e p ro m in e n t role these th ree
scien tists play in new s m ed ia coverage o f th e IQ controversy.
In so m e cases w hen an aly zin g television broadcasts, th e co d er a d d s to
th e source code a second digit th a t identifies w h eth e r an in d iv id u al is
show n d u rin g th e b ro ad c ast a n d how he o r she is show n. T h ese digits are
used only w hen co d in g television b ro ad c asts an d o nly w h en th e first digit
o f the source code is e ith e r 2 o r 5-8 (i.e., on ly w hen th e source is an
in d iv id u al a n d n o t a group). T h ese codes are as follows:
1. Interview ed. T h e in d iv id u a l so u rce m u st a c tu a lly b e show n o n th e
screen eith er in a still p h o to o r film footage an d be h eard m ak in g th e
codeable sta te m en t.
2. S h o w n /C ite d . T h e in d iv id u l source is show n on th e screen eith er in a
still p h o to g rap h o r in film footage, b u t he o r she is e ith e r q u o te d , p a ra
p hrased, o r cited in voiced-over n a rra tio n by th e a n c h o rm a n o r re p o rte r
ra th e r th a n being heard.
3. N o t S h o w n /C ite d . T h e in d iv id u al source is n o t show n in an y way o n th e
screen, b u t he o r she is eith er q u o te d , p ara p h ra sed , o r cited by the
a n c h o rm a n o r reporter.
T h u s, for ex am p le, a film ed interview w ith psychologist L eon K am in
w ould have 21 as a source code (coders w ould also w rite dow n his n am e,
profession, a n d affiliation), w hile a re p o rte r m e n tio n in g W illiam Shockley
w ith o u t acco m p an y in g film footage o r p h o to g ra p h w ould have 73 as a
so u rce code.
T h e coding process m ay be m ad e clearer by w o rking th ro u g h an actu al
ex am ple. O n Ja n u a ry 22, 1974, th e N e w York T im e s ran an article on page
16, w ritten by G eorge G o o d m a n Jr., en title d “ I.Q . S cores L in k ed to E n
v iro n m e n t.” T h e article lo c atio n is coded as O th e r page (i.e., n o t fro n t
276
The IQ Controversy
page, ed ito rial page, etc.), type as F eatu re article, an d length as th irte e n
paragraphs. (In fo rm a tio n a b o u t article source an d d ate is p a rt o f th e co d e
n u m b e r assigned to each article a n d is w ritten o n b o th th e article a n d o n all
code sheets.) T h e story re p o rts the results o f a stu d y by Dr. Peggy Sanday,
an associate professor o f a n th ro p o lo g y at th e U n iv ersity o f P en n sy lv an ia,
th a t suggests th a t th e black-w hite IQ difference can be a c c o u n te d for e n
tire ly by e n v iro n m e n ta l fac to rs, in c lu d in g d iffe re n c e s in c u ltu r e a n d
q u ality o f e d u c atio n . T h ere is also som e discu ssio n o f possible gen etic
effects o n w ith in -g ro u p IQ d iffe re n c e s a n d th e view s o f J e n s e n a n d
Shockley on black-w hite differences. T h e re is no o th e r IQ- relev an t d iscu s
sion. Issues co n sid ered are th erefo re T h e H erita b ility o f IQ (V) a n d G ro u p
D ifferences in IQ (VI). B ecause Je n sen a n d Shockley are o n ly m e n tio n e d in
rela tio n to black-w hite IQ differences, th e re is no need to ch eck O th e r
Issues C o n c e rn in g H e rrn ste in , Je n sen , o r S hockley (VII).
O n the H erita b ility o f IQ C o d e Sheet, th e only item m e n tio n e d is th e
first (show n above), c o n c e rn in g th e h eritab le c o m p o n e n t o f in telligence
(th e o th e r item s on th e sheet co n c e rn h eritab ility e stim a tes an d c o m p e n
sa to ry edu catio n ). In the n in th p ara g ra p h o f th e article , Dr. S anday says,
“ I.Q . differences betw een racial g roups is [yfc] exclusively a m a tte r o f e n
v iro n m e n t w hile differences w ith in racial g roup s is [v/c] d e te rm in a n t on
genetics an d en v iro n m e n t.” T h erefo re a “ significan t” h eritab le c o m p o n e n t
o f intelligence is coded (see item 1 on th e H erita b ility S heet, above), w ith
source code 2, single ex p ert, a n d Dr. S an d ay ’s n am e, title, a n d affiliation.
O n th e G ro u p D ifferences in IQ Sheet, item 2 reads:
2. T h e effect o f genetic differences on th e black -w h ite IQ difference is
(N M ).
to ta l (n o m e n tio n o f en v iro n m e n ta l d e te rm in a tio n , o r e n v iro n
m e n tal d e te rm in a tio n ruled out).
significant (in clu d in g e n v iro n m e n ta l d e te rm in a tio n ).
insignificant o r n o n e x iste n t (is en tirely en v iro n m en ta l).
T h is item is coded “ insignificant o r n o n e x iste n t” w ith so u rce co d e 2, as
above, c o rresp o n d in g to Dr. S an d ay ’s sta te m en t. T h e item is also cod ed
“to ta l,” w ith source codes 6 a n d 7, Je n sen a n d Shockley, becau se o f th e
follow ing sta te m e n t in p ara g ra p h six: “ T h u s th e findings op p o se th e th e o
ries o f A rth u r Je n sen , th e e d u c a tio n a l psychologist, an d W illiam Shockley,
th e N obel P rize-w inning physicist, w hich suggest th a t gen etic facto rs are
d e te rm in a n t.” N otice th a t th ere is no in d ic a tio n th a t Je n se n a n d Shockley
also believe th e e n v iro n m e n t to be an im p o rta n t d e te rm in a n t o f racial
differences in IQ. In fact, th e first p ara g ra p h o f th e artic le states th a t San-
Appendix C
277
d a y s d a ta in d icate th a t the black-w hite IQ difference is th e resu lt o f “e n
v iro n m e n ta l factors ra th e r th a n g enetics,” as if th e tw o w ere m u tu a lly
exclusive.
O th e r item s on th e G ro u p D ifferences in IQ sheet n o t m e n tio n e d in clu d e
th o se o n cu ltu ral bias in tests, SES differences in IQ, an d th e p ro p rie ty o f
stu d y in g g ro u p differences. T h e article d oes describe S an d ay ’s findings th a t
“ [cjh anges in I.Q. score seem to reflect changes in stu d e n ts’ ed u c atio n al
e n v iro n m e n t ra th e r th a n racial a p titu d e ,” an d “ [t]est score differences b e
tw een blacks an d w hites are a fu n ctio n , am o n g o th e r factors, o f th e degree
a n d n a tu re o f c o n ta c t th a t blacks have as a g ro u p w ith th e m a in stre a m —
w h ite m iddle-class A m erica.” A Pos code w as th u s assigned to item s a t
trib u tin g the black-w hite IQ difference to “ c u ltu ral d e p riv a tio n ” a n d “ in
ferio r e d u c a tio n ,” w ith a S ource code o f 2. c o rresp o n d ig to Dr. Sanday, in
b o th cases.
B ecause th e artic le a tte m p ts to p rese n t b o th sides o f th e b lack -w h ite
g en etic issue (an d recognized genetic effects on w ith in -g ro u p differences),
th e co d e r rated th e sto ry as “ N e u tra l” w ith regard to g eneral to n e, b o th
to w ard testin g a n d heritability.
C o d e rs a n d R e lia b ility
N in e g rad u a te a n d u n d e rg ra d u a te stu d e n ts coded n ew sp ap er an d m ag a
zin e articles, an d th ree o f these stu d e n ts also coded television b ro ad casts.
M an y o f the coders were involved in th e early stages o f code sh eet d ev elo p
m en t, coding h u n d re d s o f articles w ith ea rlier versions o f th e code sheets.
T h e ir p ro b lem s an d suggestions w ere in stru m e n ta l in th e ev o lu tio n o f the
final coding schem e an d co d e r in stru c tio n s. All articles an d b ro ad casts
w ere coded using th e final version o f the code sheets, regardless o f an y code
th ey had previously received.
Before coding in ea rn est, all coders w ent th ro u g h an extensive tra in in g
p erio d in w hich they w ere briefed on th e im p o rta n t elem e n ts o f th e IQ
co n troversy an d given a set o f lengthy in stru c tio n s on th e co d in g p ro
ced u re, som e o f w hich have been re p rin te d above. T rainees w ere th en asked
to co de at least tw enty articles o r b ro ad c ast segm en ts in o rd er to gain
ex p erien ce w ith th e coding schem e, an d to en su re th a t co d in g in stru c tio n s
w ere bein g follow ed. T h is tra in in g w as follow ed by th e first reliab ility
check, in w hich th e sam e ten articles w ere e x a m in e d by all coders. C o d ers
w hose reliability w as significantly low er th a n th e gro u p average w ere given
fu rth e r tra in in g in p ro b lem areas. R eliability check s w ere also c o n d u c te d
th ro u g h o u t th e d ev e lo p m e n t perio d . C ode sheets w ere revised to p ro d u ce
th e m a x im u m reliability c o n siste n t w ith a valid p o rtra y al o f news m ed ia
coverage o f th e IQ controversy.
278
The IQ Controversy
R eliability in c o n te n t analysis is a m easu re o f th e degree to w hich d if
feren t in d iv id u als, p ro p erly train ed , agree in th e ir co d in g o f th e sam e a r ti
cles o r b roadcasts; it is a m easu re o f th e objectiv ity o f th e analysis. T h e
sim plest m easu re o f reliability, a n d th e o n e m o st fre q u en tly used in c o n te n t
analyses, is p e rc e n t a g re em e n t betw een coders. It in d icates th e p ro p o rtio n
o f all categories o n th e code sheets th a t are id en tical betw een tw o co d ers
co d in g the sam e article o r bro ad cast. T h e p ro b lem w ith p erc en t ag re em e n t
as a reliability m easu re is th a t it g reatly inflates reliab ility e stim a tes because
it does n o t ta k e in to a c c o u n t p erc en t a g re em e n t ex p ected by ch an ce. T h is
is a p o te n tia lly serious p ro b lem in th e p rese n t analysis, as th e b u lk o f th e
code for an y given artic le is N M (th ere are th irte e n In d iv id u a l Issue C ode
Sheets, each w ith a t least five item s— m o st o f th ese will n o t be m e n tio n e d
in an y given artic le o r broadcast). T h erefo re, m o st o f th e co d e betw een tw o
coders will agree for an y given artic le o r b ro ad c ast, even if th e co d ers are
d istrib u tin g th e ir code ra n d o m ly th ro u g h o u t th e co d e sheets. S co tt’s p i5 is a
m easu re th a t tak es th is expected a g re em e n t ex p licitly in to acco u n t:
% observed ag re em e n t — % exp ected ag reem en t
1 — % expected ag reem en t
Pi is essentially a c o rre la tio n coefficient betw een each p a ir o f coders. W h en
ag re em e n t is n o b e tte r th a n o n e w ould expect by ch an ce, th e value o f pi is
0. W h en a g re em e n t is perfect, pi is 1.0.
T h re e sets o f reliability checks, in c lu d in g th e o n e at th e b eg in n in g o f
coding, w ere ru n on new sp ap er a n d m agazine articles using th e final ver
sion o f th e co d e sheets. N o n e o f these checks in c lu d ed all n in e coders, as
th e sam e in d iv id u als w ere n o t co d in g sim u lta n eo u sly th ro u g h o u t th e ru n
o f the p roject. N o netheless, all n in e coders p a rtic ip a te d in at least o n e p rin t
reliability check, an d th e re w ere no few er th a n fo u r co d ers in each check.
T h e sm all n u m b e r o f television b ro ad c asts allow ed o nly tw o reliab ility
checks w ith th e th ree coders involved. E ach reliab ility check in volved a
different set o f ten articles o r television broadcasts.
Pi was c o m p u te d sep arately fo r th e th ree levels o f coding: Issues co n s id
ered (on th e G en e ra l C o d e Sheet), re p re se n ta tio n o f item s on th e In d iv id u a l
Issue C o d e S heets (N M , Pos, N eg, etc.), a n d so u rce codes. T h e average pi
values across all coders for th e th ree reliability checks o n p rin t m e d ia are
Issues consid ered . 0.81; re p re se n ta tio n , 0.68; a n d so u rce codes, 0.84. T h e
values for re p re se n ta tio n an d source codes have been co rrec ted to ta k e in to
a c c o u n t th e hierarch ical n a tu re o f th e co d in g schem e. R e p re se n ta tio n o f
item s on In d iv id u a l Issue C o d e Sheets c a n n o t be ex p ected to agree if two
co d ers d o n o t agree on w h eth e r the Issue w as even co n sid ered . T h e p ro p er
Appendix C
279
ca lc u latio n o f pi for re p re se n ta tio n involves only th o se Issue C ode Sheets
used by b o th coders. In a sim ila r fashion, th e source co d e values are based
on o nly tho se ite m s w here co d ers agree on rep rese n tatio n .
T h e average pi values for th e T V reliability check s are Issues co n sid ered ,
0 .8 8 . re p re se n ta tio n , 0.75; a n d source codes, 0.73. T h e values for rep rese n
ta tio n a n d source code are co rrec ted as described.
F ifty-tw o (11 %) o f th e n ew sp ap er a n d m ag azin e articles, as well as fifteen
(23%) o f th e T V b ro ad c ast segm ents w ere d eem ed to have a large en o u g h
c o n te n t relev an t to th e IQ controversy (e.g., th e N ew York T im e s M a g a zin e
“je n s e n is m ” artic le an d th e CBS N ew s special T h e IQ M y th ) to w a rra n t
m u ltip le code. T hese articles a n d b ro ad c asts6 received th ree sets o f code
from sep arate coders, a n d th e final co d e sheets w ere c o n c a n te n a te d by
co d in g only tho se item s o n w hich at least tw o coders agreed.
N otes
1. The analysis originally included public television (PBS) as well, but a search of
Nova, the M acNeil-Lehrer News Hour, and other nationally syndicated PBS
programs for the time period under study revealed only one report on intellegence—and aptitude-testing issues, as part of a December 6, 1981 Nova pro
gram on "Twins.” PBS was therefore dropped from the analysis.
2. The Washington Post Index began publication in 1972. Our analysis of the Post
therefore does not begin until that year.
3. The Television News Index and Abstracts, published by Vanderbilt University,
indexes all network weekday evening news broadcasts, and a composite vid
eotape of relevant segments was obtained from Vanderbilt. For weekend and
morning network news broadcasts, television newsmagazine segments (e.g., 60
M inutes, 2 0 /2 0 , and network specials, only CBS News publishes an index. At
ABC and NBC, the research staffs were able to provide assistance in locating
appropriate broadcasts. Unfortunately, videotape availability is both limited and
generally very expensive at the networks and at various archives around the
country. For six of these broadcasts (four segments from the CBS Morning News,
one from CBS’s 30 M inutes, and one from ABC's 20/20), therefore, we were able
to obtain transcripts only. We were unable to obtain either videotapes or tran
scripts from relevant segments on NBC’s Today and Tomorrow programs.
4. Well over 95 percent of news media coverage of admissions testing concerns the
SAT. Coding the very limited am ount of discussion of other admissions tests
would have required a substantially longer and more com plicated coding
scheme, so these data were dropped from the analysis.
5. Ole R. Holsti, Content Analysis fo r the Social Sciences and H um anities (Read
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969). p. 140.
6. For im portant broadcasts, one coder viewed the videotape and the other two
coders used the transcripts.
Appendix D
Location, Length, and Type o f N ew s Stories
N ew spapers
T able D -l p re se n ts lo c a tio n , length, a n d ty p e d a ta fro m each new s
source. M ost o f the IQ controversy stories from each o f th e n ew sp ap ers (53
p erc en t o f all n ew spaper stories) are fo u n d inside th e new spaper, ap p ro x
im ately o n e - q u a rte r are to be fo u n d on th e ed ito rial o r op-ed pages, an d
o nly rarely (10 p ercen t) are such stories placed in p o sitio n s o f p ro m in e n ce
on th e fro n t-p a g e o r th e first page o f a section w ithin th e paper. P ro m in e n t
stories, w hich w ere m o re c o m m o n in th e la tte r years o f th e analysis, are
p re d o m in a n tly co n c e rn e d w ith th e decline an d recen t leveling off o f aver
age SAT scores. O th e r fro n t page stories o f n o te are W P sto ries o n S hockley
(3 /1 2 /7 2 ) an d on th e B u rt scandal (10/29/76), an N Y T sto ry on th e m is
labeling o f H isp an ic test ta k ers (9/16/79), a n d tw o W S J article s on tro u b le s
TABLE D-l
________________Location, Length, and Type of News Stories
N ew York Washington Wall Street
Post
Journal
Newspapers______________________________ Tim es
Location:
Front page of paper or section within paper
Editorial or Op-Ed page
Sunday magazine (including New York
Tim es Book Review)
Other page
Length (mean no. of paragraphs)
Type:
Feature article
Editorial
Letter to the editor
Book review
Newsmagazines
16
46
18
39
4
11
51
154
12.5
10
56
15.2
0
7
14.3
173
21
58
15
74
37
5
7
11
8
2
1
Length (mean no. of pages): 1.1 (s.d. = .94)
Page number of first page (mean): 64.8 (s.d. = 24.8)
Type:
Feature article: 65
Commentary/Editorial: 2
Television Networks (Newscast segments only)
Broadcast time slot:
Morning: 22
Evening: 31
Weekend: 4
Total time (mean no. of minutes): 1.8
Type:
Anchorman story: 23
Reporter story: 28
Commentary/Editorial: 6
281
282
The IQ Controversy
a t C E E B a n d E T S ste m m in g fro m c ritic is m s o f te stin g ( 9 /5 /7 2 a n d
2 /2 8 /7 8 ). C o m p ariso n o f high (fro n t page o f p ap e r o r sectio n , ed ito rial o r
op-ed page, o r S unday m agazine) versus low visibility (o th e r page) lo ca
tio n s across new spapers reveals th a t th e W P places a significantly h ig h er
p ro p o rtio n o f IQ stories in high visibility lo c atio n s th a n does th e N Y T .
N ew spaper article type parallels th e lo c atio n d ata, as 63 p erc en t are
featu re articles a n d 32 p erc en t are ed ito rials o r letters to th e editor. T h e
re m a in in g 5 p erc en t o f article s are classified as b o o k review s. T h e average
length o f an IQ -relev an t new sp ap er story is 13.4 p arag rap h s.
N ew sm agazine stories on intelligence te stin g a n d related issues are very
rarely fo u n d in p o sitio n s o f p ro m in e n c e w ith in th e m ag azin e. T h e average
begin n in g page n u m b e r o f all such stories is 65, c o rre sp o n d in g to such
“ b ack -o f-th e-b o o k ” sections as ed u c a tio n a n d science. V irtu ally all rele
v an t new sm agazine stories are featu re articles (as o p p o se d to ed ito rials o r
co m m en taries), averaging o n e page in length. T h ere are n o significant tim e
tre n d s in lo catio n , length, o r ty p e o f n ew sm agazin e article w ith th e ex cep
tio n o f 1969, th e year o f th e Je n sen coverage, in w hich articles average tw o
pages.
T h e televison d a ta in T able D -l rep rese n t on ly seg m en ts from m o rn in g ,
evening, an d w eekend new scasts. T hese d a ta d o n o t in c lu d e th e seven T V
n ew sm agazine segm ents (average length 13.3 m in u tes) o r th e o n e new s
special (the h o u r long CBS special T h e IQ M yth ). R e lev an t new scast seg
m e n ts are so m e w h at m o re c o m m o n on evenin g th a n o n m o rn in g new s
casts (tho u g h th is m ay reflect b e tte r in d ex in g for ev en in g new scasts) an d
are ap p ro x im ate ly equally d iv id ed betw een a n c h o rm a n stories (in w hich
th e sto ry is read en tirely by th e a n c h o rm a n ) an d re p o rte r sto ries (in w hich
th e a n c h o rm a n in tro d u c es a film ed sto ry n a rra te d by a n o th e r rep o rter).
C o m m e n ta rie s a n d ed ito rials are rare. R e le v an t new scast seg m en ts average
nearly tw o m in u te s in length.
Appendix E
Ideology, Journalists, and the IQ Controversy
S tudying jo u rn a lis ts ’ coverage o f such issues as n u c le a r energy, busing
an d oil co m p an ie s, Lichter, R o th m a n an d L ich ter discovered th a t th e tilt o f
such coverage often c o rrela te d closely w ith re p o rte rs’ p erso n al, social an d
p o litical o utlooks. Indeed, jo u rn a lis ts often re p o rte d th e views o f ex p e rts in
th ese fields ra th e r in a cc u ra tely as falling in line w ith th e ir ow n perspectives
o n th e issues involved. T hese findings are n o t surp risin g , given th a t jo u r
nalists ten d to seek o u t ex p e rts w ho share th e ir views w h en researching
issues o f p u b lic policy.1
In an a tte m p t to d e te r m in e w h e th e r s im ila r fa c to rs play a ro le in
coverage o f IQ a n d testin g issues, we polled a sam p le o f n a tio n a l m ed ia
p erso n n el, to w hom we directed a n u m b e r o f q u estio n s designed to ta p
th e ir social a n d political o u tlo o k , as well as specific q u e stio n s o n in te l
ligence an d a p titu d e testing. T h e sam ple consisted o f ran d o m ly selected
n am es o f ac cred ited jo u rn a lis ts w orking for n a tio n a l p u b lic atio n s listed in
th e 1985 C ongressional D irectory. To m ove beyond W ashington we also
ra n d o m ly sam p led n am es o f new s ed ito rs from th e 1985 ed itio n o f E d ito r
a n d P ublisher. F rom a u n iverse o f 1,200 n am es we drew a sam p le o f 207
jo u rn a lis ts em ployed by th e N e w York T im e s, th e W ashington Post, th e
W all S treet Journal, T im e, N ew sw eek, U.S. N ew s a n d W orld R eport, AP,
U P I, ABC, CBS, N B C , a n d PBS. O n e h u n d re d an d n in e tee n jo u rn a lis ts
resp o n d ed to o u r q u e stio n n a ire , a response rate o f 57%.
B ecause p o p u la r science jo u rn a ls have pro liferated in recen t years an d
in flu ence the views o f b oth jo u rn a lis ts a n d th e general p u b lic, we also drew
a sam p le o f science ed ito rs from S cien tific A m eric a n , N a tu re, B u lletin o f
th e A to m ic S cien tists, S cience D igest, S cience 86, O m n i, Technology R e
view, a n d A m eric a n Scien tist. We sam pled th e full u niverse o f ed ito rial staff
for each o f th e jo u rn a ls. O u r q u e stio n n a ire was sent to 86 ed ito rs, o f w hom
50 resp o n d ed , a response rate o f 58%.
As we h ypothesized, jo u rn a lis ts a n d science ed ito rs are far m o re a t
ta ch e d to an e n v iro n m e n ta list view o f intelligence an d far m o re skeptical
o f IQ tests th a n are experts, th o u g h th e differences w ere n o t as large in
283
284
The IQ Controversy
som e areas as we h ad a n ticip ate d . F or exam ple, w hile 94% o f o u r ex p e rt
re sp o n d e n ts believe th a t genetic factors play a t least so m e ro le in m e asu red
IQ differences in th e w hite p o p u la tio n , on ly 74% o f science ed ito rs a n d
67% o f n a tio n a l jo u rn a lis ts believe th e sa m e.2
D ifferences am o n g jo u rn a lists, editors, an d ex p e rts are even m o re su b
sta n tia l on th e sources o f th e black-w hite difference in IQ. As w e saw in
C h a p te r 4 (q u estio n 10), 53% o f ex p e rt resp o n d e n ts believe th a t genes a n d
e n v iro n m e n t are b o th in volved in th is differential. T h is co m p ares to only
27% o f jo u rn a lis ts a n d 23% o f th e science editors. In s h o rt, tw ice as m a n y
ex p erts as jo u rn a lis ts believe th a t genetics plays so m e ro le in th e blackw hite difference in m e asu red IQ. T h e flip side is th e p ro p o rtio n o f th o se
q u e stio n e d w ho believe th a t th e differences are p u rely th e resu lt o f e n v iro n
m e n ta l factors. O nly 17% o f e x p e rt re sp o n d e n ts are co m p lete e n v iro n m e n
talists, as c o m p a re d to 34% o f th e jo u rn a lis ts a n d 47% o f science editors.
E x p erts are less likely to believe th a t IQ tests are biased ag ain st blacks
th a n are e ith e r jo u rn a lis ts o r editors. O n ly 28% o f th e ex p erts rate such
tests as e ith e r m o d e ra tely o r extrem ely biased ag ain st blacks, as c o m p a re d
to 42% o f jo u rn a lis ts an d alm o st h a lf o f th e science ed ito rs. Surprisingly,
however, ex p e rts are so m ew h at m o re likely th a n jo u rn a lis ts a n d science
ed ito rs to believe th a t IQ tests have been m isu sed in m ak in g d ecisio n s
a b o u t individuals. Sixty-five p erc en t o f o u r ex p e rt resp o n d e n ts believe th a t
intelligence a n d a p titu d e tests used in e le m e n ta ry a n d se co n d a ry schools
are often o r alm o st always used for m a k in g decisio n s for w hich th ey have
lim ited o r u n k n o w n validity, as c o m p a re d to only 40% o f jo u rn a lis ts a n d
46% o f science editors.
O u r ex p e rt sam p le is m o re su p p o rtiv e o f th e c o n tin u e d use o f SATs as
o n e criterio n for college ad m issio n th a n are jo u rn a lis ts o r science ed ito rs,
alth o u g h all g ro u p s are relatively su p p o rtiv e o f th e SAT. T h u s 90% o f th e
ex p e rts resp o n d in g believe th a t th e SAT is sufficiently valid to be u sed as a
basis for college adm issio n s, as c o m p a re d to 72% o f jo u rn a lis ts a n d 68% o f
science ed ito rs (see n o te 2).
In general, th e n , b o th science ed ito rs a n d jo u rn a lis ts are less su p p o rtiv e
o f th e h e re d ita ria n p o sitio n (especially o n th e racial issue) th a n is th e
ex p e rt co m m u n ity , as well as being less su p p o rtiv e o f th e v alidity o f b o th
IQ an d SAT. T hese p o sitio n s are associated w ith a lib eral, co sm o p o litan
social a n d p olitical o u tlo o k . Science ed ito rs are b o th so m e w h at m o re in
clined to an e n v iro n m e n ta list p o sitio n o n th e racial issue a n d so m ew h at
m o re liberal an d c o sm o p o lita n th a n th e jo u rn a lis ts we sa m p le d .3 T h u s,
w hile 63% o f th e jo u rn a lis ts agree o r strongly agree th a t A m eric an eco
n o m ic e x p lo ita tio n has c o n trib u te d to th ird w orld poverty, th a t view is
su p p o rte d by 75% o f th e science editors. Sim ilarly, o nly 26% o f th e jo u r
nalists q u e stio n e d agree o r strongly agree th a t it w ould be good for th e
Appendix E
285
TABLE E-l
Individual differences in IQ among white Americans are at least partially caused by
genetic differences.*
Journalists
Editors
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N
13%
16%
54%
58%
22%
18%
11%
8%
108
50
Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the source of the black
white difference in IQ?
Journalists
Editors
IQ Experts
Entirely
Environment
Entirely
Genetic
Both
34%
47%
17%
Data Are
Insufficient
N
1%
2%
1%
27%
23%
53%
38%
28%
28%
112
47
566
On the whole, to what extent do you believe the most commonly used intelligence
tests are biased against American Blacks?
Journalists
Editors
IQ Experts
Not At All
or Insignif.
Somewhat
Biased
19%
13%
21%
40%
40%
50%
Moderately Extremely
Biased
Biased
33%
36%
24%
9%
11%
4%
N
116
47
556
In your opinion, how often are intelligence and aptitude tests used in elementary
and secondary schools for making decisions for which they have limited or un
known validity?
Journalists
Editors
IQ Experts
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
9%
2%
4%
Almost
Always
N
51%
51%
31%
39%
41%
51%
1%
5%
14%
99
41
534
The SAT is a sufficiently valid predictor of college performance to justify its con
tinued use in college admissions decisions in which there are many more applicants
than places.*
Journalists
Editors
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N
6%
7%
66%
61%
21%
26%
7%
7%
112
46
*See fo o tn o te A p p e n d ix E. N o te 2, re IQ ex p erts’ re sp o n ses to th ese q u e stio n s.
286
The IQ Controversy
U n ite d States to m ove tow ard socialism . O n th e o th e r h a n d , 52% o f th e
science ed ito rs hold to th a t p o sitio n . B oth g ro u p s are a b o u t eq u ally su p p o r
tive o f stro n g affirm ative a c tio n m easu res for blacks, b u t o n ly 5% o f jo u r
nalists (as c o m p a re d to 20% o f science ed ito rs) “ strongly agree,” ra th e r
th a n ju s t “agree,” w ith affirm ative ac tio n . F u rth e rm o re , 77% o f jo u rn a lis ts
as c o m p a re d to 48% o f editors, agree o r strongly agree th a t th e A m eric an
priv ate en terp rise system is generally fair to w orking p eople. Lastly, 23% o f
jo u rn a lis ts c o m p ared to 33% o f ed ito rs agree o r stro n g ly agree th a t th e
stru c tu re o f o u r society causes m o st people to feel alien ated .
As o n e w ould expect, b o th g roups are m u c h m o re likely to view th e m
selves as liberal th a n m id d le o f th e ro ad o r conserv ativ e o n a 7 -p o in t scale,
alth o u g h , again, th e liberalism o f science ed ito rs far o u tstrip s th a t o f jo u r
nalists. A p p ro x im ately 64% o f th e la tte r g ro u p rate th em selv es as liberal (a
ra n k in g o f 1, 2, o r 3), 21% as m id d le o f th e road; an d 16% as co n serv ativ e (a
ra n k in g o f 5, 6, o r 7). O n th e o th e r h a n d , 86% o f science ed ito rs place
th em selves on th e liberal side o f th e political scale as c o m p a re d to a m ere
8% w ho classify th em selves as m id d le o f th e ro ad , a n d an even sm aller
p ercentage w ho see them selves as relatively con servative.
T h e m o st in te restin g findings from o u r p o in t o f view, however, are n o t
the differences betw een science ed ito rs a n d jo u rn a lis ts, b u t th e sim ilarities
betw een jo u rn a lis ts an d exp erts. As Table E-2 d e m o n stra te s, on a lm o st all
q u estio n s o f social an d political o u tlo o k , th e views o f th ese tw o g ro u p s
co in cid e fairly closely, th o u g h th e ex p e rt c o m m u n ity is c h a racterize d by a
so m ew h at w ider range o f o p in io n s th a n are jo u rn a lists.
T h u s, 60% o f o u r e x p e rt re sp o n d e n ts agrees o r stro n g ly agrees th a t
A m eric an e c o n o m ic e x p lo ita tio n o f th e th ird w orld c o n trib u te s to its pov
erty; 25% hold sim ila r a ttitu d e s a b o u t th e U n ite d S tates m o v in g to w ard
socialism . S ixty-three p erc en t are su p p o rtiv e o r stro n g ly s u p p o rtiv e o f affir
m ativ e actio n p ro g ra m s fo r blacks. Indeed, th e ex p erts are so m e w h at m o re
strongly c o m m itte d to affirm ative ac tio n th a n are th e jo u rn a lists.
F ifty-four p erc en t o f th e e x p e rt re sp o n d e n ts agree o r stro n g ly agree th a t
th e p riv ate e n terp rise system is generally fair to w orkers, w hile 36% agree or
strongly agree th a t th e s tru c tu re o f society causes alien a tio n . Finally, 63%
rate them selv es as liberal, 17% as m id d le o f th e ro ad , an d 20% as c o n
servative. T h e ir se lf-ra tin g s are n o t q u ite as lib eral as th o se o f jo u rn a lists.
H ow ever, th e p ro p o rtio n o f liberal responses th e y give o n in d iv id u al q u e s
tio n s differs little from n a tio n a l m ed ia perso n n el.
We believe th a t these d a ta help explain th e m a n n e r in w hich in fo rm a tio n
a b o u t intelligence a n d intelligence testin g is c o m m u n ic a te d to th e b ro a d e r
public, an d th a t they also th ro w light on so m e o th e r issues. O u r h y p o th eses
in th is are a m u st necessarily be regarded as te n tativ e.
F irst, it is clear th a t re p o rte rs a n d IQ ex p e rts are sy m p a th e tic to th e new
Appendix E
287
TABLE E-2
American exploitation has contributed to Third World poverty.
Journalists
Editors
1Q Experts
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
13
13
16
50
62
44
30
23
22
8
2
17
N
119
47
590
The United States would be better off if it moved toward socialism.
Journalists
Editors
IQ Experts
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
8
9
5
18
43
20
55
39
33
19
9
42
N
114
46
532
Strong affirm ative action measures should be used in hiring to assure blacl
representation.
Journalists
Editors
IQ Experts
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
5
20
17
60
46
46
29
33
24
6
2
12
N
1 14
46
621
The American private enterprise system is generally fair to working people.
Journalists
Editors
IQ Experts
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
4
4
9
73
44
45
21
44
36
2
6
10
N
114
49
621
The structure of our society causes most people to feel alienated.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
4
6
8
19
27
28
65
55
36
12
9
28
Most
Liberal
1
2
Political Ideology
3
4
:5
6
22
30
7
23
46
25
19
10
31
5
0
3
Journalists
Editors
IQ Experts
Journalists
Editors
IQ Experts
21
8
17
9
6
16
N
1 13
45
593
Most
Conservative N
7
2
0
1
115
50
632
288
The IQ Controversy
liberalism . T h e finding is n o t surprising. O th e r stu d ies d e m o n stra te th a t
in d iv id u als en terin g th e social sciences o r th e service p ro fessio n s share
c e rta in c o m m o n views a b o u t th e society.4 E x p erts differ from jo u rn a lis ts
on ly in th e ir ow n specialties, w here th ey reject th e overall claim s o f th e new
ideology w ith, o n e suspects, so m e cognitive d isso n an ce.
S econd, it is clea r th a t jo u rn a lis ts ’ re p o rtin g o n IQ issues m o re closely
reflects th e ir ow n views th a n it d oes th a t o f th e e x p e rt c o m m u n ity A s w ith
n u c le a r energy issues, jo u rn a lis ts seem to draw th e ir im age o f w h at scien
tists believe fro m tho se scien tists w ho share th e ir views, w h ate v er th e sta n d
ing o f such p erso n s in th e rele v an t ex p e rt c o m m u n ity .5
It is possible th a t th e views o f jo u rn a lis ts have b een at least p artially
fo rm e d by science jo u rn a ls w ritte n fo r th e ed u c ated p u b lic. T h e e d ito rs o f
such jo u rn a ls are socially a n d p olitically fu rth e r to th e left th a n e ith e r
jo u rn a lis ts o r ex p erts, a n d th ey are, in general, less sy m p a th e tic to hered ita ria n views o n IQ a n d to th e validity claim s o f v ario u s m easu res o f in te l
ligence a n d a b ility In so far as jo u rn a lis ts o b ta in th e ir in fo rm a tio n from
such jo u rn a ls , a n d th e views o f ed ito rs o f these jo u rn a ls d ic ta te a c e rta in
ty p e o f coverage o f th e issues involved, jo u rn a lis ts ’ p erc ep tio n o f th e views
o f th e e x p e rt c o m m u n ity will be less a c cu rate th a n m ig h t otherw ise be th e
case.
Jo u rn a lists’ views alone, however, c a n n o t ex p lain th e generally negative
coverage o f th e h e re d ita ria n p o sitio n by th e n a tio n a l m ed ia. W hile jo u r
nalists are less su p p o rtiv e o f h e re d ita ria n a rg u m e n ts th a n are th e ex p erts,
th ey are n o t as hostile to th is p o sitio n as th e alm o st un iv ersally negative
coverage o f such views w ould suggest. C learly, n o t all jo u rn a lis ts sh are D an
R a th e r’s o r T im e m a g az in e’s co n v ictio n th a t th e ev id en ce so fully su p p o rts
an e n v iro n m e n ta list a n ti-testin g p o sitio n th a t a lte rn a te view s have little to
re c o m m e n d th em .
O u r sam p le m ay sim ply n o t distin g u ish tho se m o st resp o n sib le fo r re
p o rtin g o n IQ issues. It m ay be th a t jo u rn a lis ts w ho te n d to w rite a b o u t
such subjects have stro n g er a n ti-h e re d ita ria n a n d a n ti-testin g views th a n
does th e average reporter. T h is is n o t u n u su a l. In ac ad e m ia , for ex am p le,
th o se w orking o n peace stu d ies o r in th e field o f e th n ic a n d race rela tio n s
te n d to be to th e left o f th o se w ho specialize in G re ek o r m ed iev al h is to ry
In d eed , tho se w ho seek o u t areas th a t are in volved w ith c o n te m p o ra ry
social issues te n d to e n te r th e m w ith a re fo rm e r’s zeal.
T h e re is a n o th e r p o ssib ility P erspectives often b ec o m e d o m in a n t b e
cause tho se w ho s u p p o rt th e m are m o re m ilita n t th a n are o p p o n en ts.
T h u s, th e energy w ith w hich eg alitarian s a n d a n ti-h e re d ita ria n s press th e ir
p o sitio n m ay have silenced m a n y w ho believe th a t in d iv id u al differences in
m e asu red IQ d o involve a genetic c o m p o n e n t. In a d d itio n , th e h isto ry o f
racism in A m eric a has b een so flagrant an in ju stice by A m eric a’s ow n
Appendix E
289
sta n d a rd s th a t even jo u rn a lis ts w ho have reservatio n s a b o u t th e new e n
v iro n m e n ta lism m ay hesitate to give an y creedence to th e h ere d itaria n
p o sitio n for fear o f possible social consequences.
T h ese last tw o hypo th eses are co n jec tu ra l. T h ey are c o m p a tib le w ith o u r
findings, b u t th e d a ta we have g ath ered can n o t prove o r disprove th em .
W h e th e r they are c o rre c t o r not, o u r IQ study, as well as o th e r stu d ies o f th e
c o m m u n ic a tio n o f in fo rm a tio n a b o u t co n tro v ersial scientific issues to th e
larger public, leads us to th e co n c lu sio n th a t som e p ro fo u n d changes have
ta k en place in th is process d u rin g th e past tw enty-five years. As discussed in
C h a p te r 8, such changes have also affected th e m a n n e r in w hich scientific
(an d social scientific) re p u ta tio n s m ay be en h a n c e d o r w eak en ed , at least
w hen it com es to d ealing w ith scientific findings th a t overlap w ith c o n tro
versial issues o f p u b lic policy.6
N otes
1. Robert S. Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda S. Lichter, The M edia E lite
(Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986).
2. The wording on questions 1 and 5 was not exactly the same for the expert
community as for journalists and science editors. Thus the expert com munity is
not listed for those questions in Table E -l. However, the meaning was close
enough to allow for at least a rough comparison (See Chapter 4 and 5).
3. O ur samples of journalists is slightly more conservative than the one developed
by Lichter. Rothman, and Lichter in The M edia Elite. However, this is probably
a function of sample differences. The sample reported here includes the wire
services and is more heavily weighted toward editorial staff than was the one
developed by Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter. See The M edia Elite.
4. Steven Brint, “New Class and Cumulative Trend Explanations of Liberal Politi
cal Attitudes of Professionals,” American Journal oJ'Scoiology 90 ( 1984):30—71.
Alan Mazur, “The Development of Political Values in Management, Engineer
ing and Journalism ,” Research in Political Sociology , vol. 2 (Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, 1986), pp. 225-241.
5. During the 1970s and 1980s, the relevant scientific com m unity overwhelmingly
supported the development of nuclear energy. Journalists, on the other hand,
gave the impression that the com munity was sharply divided, and sometimes
even that a majority of “experts” were skeptical about such development. In so
doing, the national media often relied upon groups or “experts” with very little
standing in the scientific community. These were “experts” who shared the views
of the journalists. See Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, “Elite Ideology
and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy,” American Political Science R e
view 81 (June 1987):383—404.
6. Stanley R othm an “A m erican Intellectuals,” The W orld an d I (January
1987):555—565.
Appendix F
Survey Questionnaire
NOTE:
Throughout the questionnaire, "NQ" stand» for Not Qualified, and should also
be interpreted as Don t Know and No Opinion. Also, please ignore numbers in
brackets and parentheses, as these will be used for coding purposes only.
THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE
1.
If you do not feelqualified to answer questions
and the reliability and validity of intelligence
to question 11.
__ NQ
2.
It has been argued that there is a consensus among psychologists and educators as
to the kinds of behaviors that are labeled "intelligent." Do you agree that
there is such a consensus?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(9)
3.
[8 ]
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
NQ
Do you believe that, on the whole, the development of intelligence tests has
proceeded in the context of an adequate theory of intelligence?
(1)
4.
___
___
___
___
Yes
(2)
No
(9)____ NQ
[9]
Please check all behavioral descriptors, listed below, which you believe to be an
important element of intelligence.
Adaptation to one's environment
Creativity
General knowledge
Goal-directedness
5.
about the nature of intelligence
tests, please check here, and go
Memory
Mental speed
Sensory acuity
Others (Please list)
NQ (Go to question 6 )
What important elements of intelligence, checked above, if any, do you feel are
not adequately measured by the most commonly used intelligence tests.
Adaptation to one's environment
Creativity
General knowledge
Goal-directedness
Memory
Mental speed
Sensory acuity
Others (Please list)
NQ (Go to question 6 )
291
[28-45]
292
6.
The IQ Controversy
For each personal characteristic listed below, please circle the number, 1-4,
which best represents your view of the importance of that characteristic to
performance on intelligence tests:
Of little
importance
Somewhat
important
Moderately
important
Very
important
a. Achievement
motivation
1
2
3
4
(9)
__ NQ
[46]
b. Anxiety
1
2
3
4
(9) ___ NQ
[47J
c. Attentiveness
1
2
3
4
(9) ___ NQ
[48]
d. Emotional
lability
1
2
3
4
(9) ___ NQ
[49]
e. Persistence
1
2
3
4
(9) ___ NQ
[50]
3
4
(9)
[51]
«
f. Physical
health
1
2
NQ
How stable is the attribute(s) being measured by intelligence tests, compared to
a purely physical characteristic such as height, when each is expressed relative
to the population mean?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(9)
8.
___
___
___
___
___
___
Much less stable
Somewhat less stable
About equally as stable
Somewhat more stable
Much more stable
NQ
[52]
Compared to success on achievement tests, does success on intelligence tests
among American test takers generally depend less, more, or about the same amount
on acquired knowledge?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(9)
___
___
___
___
___
___
Much less
Somewhat less
About the same
Somewhat more
Much more
NQ
[53]
Is intelligence, as measured by intelligence tests, better described in terms of
a primary general intelligence factor and subsidiary group or special ability
factors, or entirely in terms of separate faculties?
(1)
(2 )
(3)
(9) ___
10.
General intelligence and subsidiary factors
Separate faculties
Neither description is superior
NQ
[54]
Please estimate the average improvement to be expected on composite (Verbal +
Math) Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores (standard deviation = 200 points) from
each of the following, assuming the test taker has some general familiarity with
standardized tests.
a. Practice taking SAT exams
(999)
NQ
[55-57]
b. Small-scale (<_ 50 hours) coachingprograms, over and
above the effects of practice
(999)
NQ
[58-60]
c. Large-scale (_> 300 hours) coachingprograms, over and
above the effects of practice
(999)
NQ
[61-63]
Appendix F
293
THE HERITABILITY OF IQ
11. If you do not feel qualified to answer questions about the heritability of IQ,
please check here, and go to question 15. ___ NQ
12. Please check all of the sources of evidence, below, which you believe provide
reasonable evidence for a significant non-zero heritability of IQ in the American
white population.
[64]
General comparisons between degree of genetic relatedness between
various family members, and IQ correlations, that is, kinship
correlations.
Studies of monozygotic twins reared apart.
Studies comparing monozygotic to dizygotic twins.
Twin family studies comparing, for example, the children of
monozygotic twins.
Adoption studies.
NQ
13.
[65]
[6 6 ]
[67]
[6 8 ]
Do you believe there is sufficient evidence to arrive at a reasonable estimate of
the heritability of IQ in the American white population?
(1) ___ Yes
(2) ___ No (Go to question 14)
(9) ___ NQ (Go to question 14)
[69]
13A. To one significant decimal place, what is your best estimate of the broad
heritability of IQ in the American white population (please give estimate
as a number between 0 and 1.0)? _______
(999)__ __________ NQ
14.
[70-72]
Do you believe there is sufficient evidence to arrive at a reasonable estimate of
the heritability of IQ in the American black population?
(1) ___ Yes
(2) ___ No (Go to
(9) ___ NQ (Go to
[8 ]
question 15)
question 15)
14A. To one significant decimal place, what is your best estimate of the broad
heritability of IQ in the American black population? ____
(999)
NQ
[9-11]
RACE. CLASS. AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN' IQ
15.
If you do not feel qualified to answer questions about race and class differences
in IQ, or their heritability, please check here, and go to question 24.
NQ
16.
In your opinion, is the fact that an intelligence test has not been properly
standardized for a certain group, by itself, sufficient evidence that the test
biased against that group?
is
(1) ___ Yes, improper standardization is sufficient evidence of test bias.
(2) ___ No, improper standarization is not sufficient evidence of test bias, but
it makes the possibility of bias more likely.
(3) ___ No, there is no relation between test standardization and test bias.
(9) ___ NQ
17.
[12]
For each factor listed below, please circle the number, 1-4, which best represents
your view of the degree to which that factor biases individually administered
intelligence test scores, that is, the degree to which it, on average,
differentially affects members of certain groups, racial, economic, or otherwise.
Insignificant
biasing
effect
Race of the
examiner
Some
biasing
effect
Moderate
biasing
e f fec t
Large
biasing
effect
(9 )
NQ
[13]
294
The IQ Controversy
Insignificant
biasing
effect
b. Language and
dialect of the
examiner
18.
3
4
(9) ___ NQ
[14]
2
3
4
(9) ___ NQ
[15]
d. Test taker
anxiety
1
2
3
4
(9) ___ NQ
[16]
e. Test taker
motivation
1
2
3
4
(9)
1
_
NQ
[17]
Racial content bias may be defined as either race by item interaction in test
scores, or different factor analytic solutions between black and white test
takers. According to either of these definitions, how much racial content bias
do you believe there is in the most commonly used intelligence tests?
___
___
___
___
An insignificant amount of content bias
Some content bias
A moderate amount of content bias
A large amount of content bias
NQ
[18]
tests are biased against American blacks? In other words, to what extent does an
average black American's test score underrepresent his or her actual level of
those abilities the test purports to measure, relative to the average ability
level of members of other racial orethnic
groups?
___
___
___
___
___
Not at all or insignificantly biased
Somewhat biased
Moderately biased
Extremely biased
NQ
[19]
tests are biased against members of lower socio-economic groups? In other words,
to what extent does the test score of an average lower socio-economic group
member underrepresent his or her actual level of those abilities the test
purports to measure, relative to the average ability level of members of other
socio-economic groups?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(9)
21.
Large
biasing
effect
2
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(9)
20.
Moderate
biasing
effect
c. Attitude of the examiner
toward the group
in question
1
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(9)
19.
Some
biasing
effect
___
___
___
___
Not at all or insignificantly biased
Somewhat biased
Moderately biased
Extremely biased
NQ
[20]
Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of
the black-white difference in IQ?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(9)
___
___
___
___
The
The
The
The
NQ
difference is entirely due to environmental variation.
difference is entirely due to genetic variation.
difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation.
data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion.
[21]
Appendix F
22.
In your opinion, to what degree is the average American's socio-economic status
(SES) determined by his or her IQ?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(9) ___
23.
IQ
IQ
IQ
IQ
NQ
is not at all important to SES.
plays only a small role in determining SES.
is an important, but not the most important, determinant of SES.
is the most important determinant of SES.
Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of
socio-economic class differences in IQ?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(9)
___
___
___
___
___
The
The
The
The
NQ
difference is entirely due to environmental variation.
difference is entirely due to genetic variation.
difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation.
data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion.
THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING
24. If you do not feel qualified to answer questions about the use of intelligence
testing, please check here, and go to question 34. ___ NQ
25. For each item listed below, please circle the number, 1-4, which best represents
your view of the degree to which it is to be found in intelligence test adminis
tration and interpretation in elementary and secondary schools:
Rarely
present
Sometimes
present
1
Almost always
present
3
4
a.
Administration under improper conditions, such as failure to give adequate
instructions or follow prescribed time limits, or in an environment with
significant^ is tractors.
b.
Use of English language test results for long-range predictions concerning
students for whom English is a second language
c.
Comparison of test scores between students while ignoring limitations placed
on such comparisons by the test's reliability and measurement error
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
(9)
(9)
(9)
NQ
NQ
NQ
d.
Comparison of intelligence and achievement test scores as a measure of under
or overachievement while ignoring test reliability and measurement error,
and differences in the domains of ability covered by each test
e.
Use of tests in making decisions for which they have limited or unknown
validity
1
1
26.
2
Often
present
2
2
3
3
4
4
(9)
NQ
(9) ____ NQ
On the average, how much of an effect do you believe a teacher's knowledge of a
student's intelligence test score has on the student's academic performance?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
___
___
___
___
No significant effect
Some effect
A moderate effect
A large effect
296
27.
The IQ Controversy
On the average, how much of an effect do you believe a student's knowledge of his
or her intelligence test score has on the student's academic performance?
(1)
No significant effect
(2) ___ Some effect
(3) ___ A moderate effect
(4) ___ A large effect
(9)
NQ
28.
Assuming that placement of white children
into classes for
the educable mentally
retarded (EMR) is to continue, are you in favor of the use of individually
administered intelligence tests as one of the criteria
for such placement?
(1)
Yes
(2)
No
(9)
NQ
29. Assuming that placement of black children into EMR classes is to continue, are
you in favor of the use of individually administered intelligence tests as one £ £
the criteria for such placement?
(1)
30.
Yes
(2) ___ No
For each of the admissions tests listed below, please indicate whether you
believe it adds sufficient predictive validity to that available from other
nontest criteria to justify its continued use in admissions decisions in which
there are many more applicants than places.
a. Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
31.
(2 ) ___ No
(9) ___ NQ
(1 ) __ Yes
(2 ) ___ No
(9) ___ NQ
c. Graduate Record Examination (GRE)
(1 ) ___ Yes
(2 ) ___ No
(9) ___ NQ
d. Law School Admission Test (LSAT)
(1 ) ___ Yes
(2 ) ___ No
(9) ___ NQ
e. Medical College
Admission Test (MCAT)
(1 ) ___ Yes
(2 ) ___ No
(9) ___ NQ
f. Graduate Management
Admission Test (GMAT)
(1 )
_ Yes
(2 ) ___ No
19) ___ NQ
Do you approve or disapprove of complete disclosure laws such as New York's
truth-in-testing law, which require admissions test makers to release the
contents and answers of their tests to the general public within a specified time
after test administration?
___
___
___
___
___
___
Strongly approve
Somewhat approve
Indifferent
Somewhat disapprove
Strongly disapprove
NQ
Approximately what proportion of all employment tests given do you believe are
improperly validated for the purpose for which they are used?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(9)
33.
( 1 ) ___ Yes
b. American College
Testing Program (ACT)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(9)
32.
(9) ____ NQ
___
___
___
___
___
An insignificant proportion
A small but significant proportion
A moderate proportion
A large proportion
NQ
For each test use listed below, please circle the number, 1-7, which best
represents your opinion of the importance intelligence and similar tests (e.g.,
general aptitude tests like the SAT in the case of college admissions) should
play in such decisions, relative to the role they now play.
Appendix F
Severely
reduced role
1
Severely
increased role
Remain about
the same
2
3
297
4
6
5
7
a. Diagnosis and special education planning in elementary and secondary schools
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[41]
b. Tracking decisions in elementary and secondary schools
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[42]
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[«]
c. College admissions
1
2
3
d. Graduate and professional school admissions
1
2
3
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[44]
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[45]
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[46]
4
5
6
7
(9)
[47]
4
e. Vocational counseling
1
2
3
f. Hiring decisions
1
2
3
g. Promotion decisions
1
2
3
NQ
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND INVOLVEMENT WITH INTELLIGENCE TESTING
34. Please check one item below which best describes your principal current position.
(01)
(02)
(03)
(04)
(05)
___
___
___
___
___
(06) ___
(07) ___
(08) ___
(09) ___
Tenured faculty member at a college or university
[48-49]
Nontenured faculty member at a college or university
Other university or college staff
Graduate student
Psychologist or educational specialist working for private (nontesting)
industry
Psychologist or educational specialist working for testing industry
Psychologist or educational specialist working for federal government
Psychologist or educational specialist working for state or local
government
Psychologist or educational specialist working in primary or secondary
education
Other (Please specify)
___________— _______
35. How often in the past two years have you engaged in the following activities?
35A. Given speeches or lectures, delivered papers, or served on panel discussions
before the following groups on intelligence testing or related issues?
a. Social or behavioral scientists
in your discipline
never
1-2
times
1
2
3-5 6-10
times times
11+
times
3
4
5
[50]
5
[51]
b. Other scientific groups
1
2
3
4
c. General college audiences
(aside from teaching)
1
2
3
4
5
[52]
d. Business or industry groups
1
2
3
4
5
[53]
e. Public meetings or
demonstrations
1
2
3
4
5
[54]
298
The IQ Controversy
never
1-2
times
3-5
times
6-10
times
11+
times
f. '^Public interest" groups
I
2
3
4
5
[55]
g. Other
I
2
3
4
5
[56-58]
(Please specify)
35B. Served as a source of information for the news media on intelligence testing
or related issues?
(1)
Never
(2 ) ___ 1 - 2 times
(3) ___ 3-5 times
(4) ___ 6-10 times
(5)
More than 10 times
35.
[5 9 ]
How often in the past two years have you engaged in the following activities?
35C. Declined to serve as a source of information for the news media on the
subject of intelligence testing or related issues?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
___ Never
___ 1-2 times
___ 3-5 times
___ 6-10 times
___ More than 10 times
[60]
35D. Written letters to or phoned newspapers or magazines on the subject of
intelligence testing or related issues?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
___ Never
___ 1-2 times
___ 3-5 times
___ ^6-10 times
More than 10 times
[61]
35E. Administered an individual intelligence or aptitude test?
(1)
Never
(2) ___ 1-5 times
(3) ___ 6-20 times
(4) ___ 21-50 times
(5)
More than 50 times
[62]
35F. Administered a group intelligence or aptitude test?
(1)
Never
(2) ___ 1-2 times
(3) ___ 3-5 times
(4) ___ 6-10 times
(5)
More than 10 times
36.
[63]
Please check all areas below in which you are currently planning or carrying out
research.
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
The nature of intelligence or other cognitive abilities
Test development or validation
The heritability of IQ
Bias in intelligence tests
Group differences in IQ
Testing in elementary and secondary schools
Testing in admissions to schools of higher education
Employment testing
Other aspects of intelligence or testing
(Please specify)
[8 ]
[9]
[1 0 ]
[1 1 ]
[1 2 ]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16-18]
Appendix F
37.
299
Approximately how many articles or chapters have you ever written for either
academic/professional or general audiences dealing with the following aspects of
intelligence and intelligence testing? (Please answer all that apply)
General
audience
Academic/
professional
a. The nature of intelligence or
other cognitive abilities
b. Test development or validation
c. The heritability of IQ
d. Bias in intelligence tests
e. Group differences in IQ
f. Testing in elementary and
secondary schools
g. Testing in admissions to
schools of higher education
h. Employment testing
i. Other aspects of intelligence or testing
(Please specify)
[19-22]
[23-26]
[27-30]
[31-34]
[35-38]
[39-42]
[43-46]
[47-50]
[51-62]
38.
For each news source listed below please circle the number, 1-7, which best
represents how accurately you believe their reporting to be on issues related to
intelligence testing.
Very
innaccurate
39.
a. Christian Science Monitor
1
2
b. Commercial television
networks
1
2
3
c. National Public Radio
1
2
3
d. New York Times
1
2
3
e. Newsweek
1
2
3
5
6
7
4
5
6
4
5
6
4
5
4
5
4
3
(9) ___ NQ
[63]
7
(9) ___ NQ
[64]
7
(9) ___ NQ
[65]
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
166]
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[67]
[6 8 ]
f. PBS television
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
g. Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[69]
h. U.S. News and World Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
170]
i. Wall Street Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[71]
j. Washington Post
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[72]
Have you ever hesitated in expressing your opinion on an issue related to
intelligence testing?
(2)
(1)
40.
Very
accurate
No
Yes.
[8 ]
If yes, why did you hesitate? _________________________________
_____________________________________________
For each author listed below, please circle the number, 1-7, which best repre
sents how highly you regard his or her work on intelligence and intelligence
testing.
Very low
regard
Anne Anastasi
1
Very high
regard
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9)
NQ
[9-13]
300
The IQ Controversy
Very high
Very low
b. Cyril Burt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[15)
c. Raymond Cattell
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[16]
d. Lee Cronbach
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[17]
e. Hans Eysenck
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[18]
f. Stephen J. Gould
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[19]
g. J. P. Guilford
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[2 0 ]
h. Richard Herrnstein
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[2 1 ]
i. Lloyd Humphreys
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[2 2 ]
j. Arthur Jensen
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[23]
k. Leon Kamin
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[24]
m. Robert L. Thorndike
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[25]
n. Philip Vernon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[26]
o. David Wechsler
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(9) ___ NQ
[27]
PERSONAL AND SOCIAL BACKGROUND
41. Sex:
(1)
42. Age:
____
Male
(2) _
[28]
[29-30]
43. Current marital status:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
44.
___
___
___
___
Single
Married
Divorced
Widowed
[31]
For each statement listed below, please circle the number, 1-4, which best
represents the degree to which you agree or disagree.
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
1
a. American economic exploitation has contributed to third world poverty.
1
2
3
4
(9)
NoOpinion
[32]
b. The American private enterprise system is generally fair to working people.
1
2
3
4
(9)
NoOpinion
[33]
c. Strong affirmative action measures should be used in job hiring to assure
black representation.
(9)
No Opinion
[34]
d. The United States would be better off if it moved toward socialism.
1
2
3
4
(9)
No
Opinion
[35]
e. The structure of our society causes most people to feel alienated.
1
2
3
4
(9)
No
Opinion
[36]
Appendix F
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
301
Strongly
disagree
f. It is wrong for a married person to have sexual relations with anyone
other than his or her spouse.
No Opinion
(9)
[37]
45. Please circle the number, below, which best represents your political perspective.
Very
liberal
Very
conservative
[38]
46. From which ethnic or nationality group or groups are you mainly descended?
(Check no more than two)
(01)
(02)
(03)
(04)
(05)
(06)
(07)
(08)
(09)
___ Afro-American
___ English, Scottish, Welsh
___ French
German
___ Irish
___ Italian
___ Jewish, Eastern European
___ Jewish, German or Austrian
___ Native American
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
___
___
___
___
Polish
[39-42]
Russian
Scandinavian
Central or South American
Mexican-American (Chicano)
___ Peurto Rican
Other Hispanic
Other (Please specify)
47. Compared to other American families at the time, how would you characterize your
childhood family income?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(9)
___
___
___
___
___
___
[4 3 ]
Well above average
Above average
Average
Below average
Well below average
Don't know/No response
48. Please indicate your current religious affiliation, and that in which you were
raised.
Current
CATHOLIC
PROTESTANT
Baptist
Congregational
Episcopalian/Anglican
Lutheran
Methodist
Mormon
Presbyterian
Quaker
Unitarian
Other Protestant (Please specify)
Protestant, no demonination
JEWISH
Orthodox
Conservative
Reform
Jewish, no branch
BUDDHIST
HINDU
MUSLIM
NONE
OTHER (Please specify)
Childhood
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
49. Do you wish to receive a summary of our findings'
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questi
additional comments, please use this page.
20
[44-47]
Index
A rm e d S erv ices V o c a tio n a l A p titu d e B at
A B C World News Tonight , 243
te ry (ASVAB), 117, 159, 175
A bility g ro u p in g . See T rack in g
A rm y G e n e ra l C lassificatio n Test (A G C T),
A bility testin g , 117
21
A b stra ct reaso n in g , 44, 53, 56, 59, 74
A sso ciated Press, 177
A sso ciatio n o f B lack Psychologists (A B P), 3,
A c h ie v e m e n t m o tiv a tio n , 56, 59, 73
A c h ie v e m e n t test, 60
5, 29, 162-63
A c q u ire d know ledge, 44
A d am s, R ic h ard . 242
A sso rtiv e m a tin g , 84, 86, 125
A d aptiv e behavior, 73
A d o p tio n stu d ies, 21, 87, 9 0 -9 3 . 128
Atlanta Constitution , 224
Atlantic, 28, 125, 220
A ffirm a tiv e a ctio n p ro g ram s, 22 7 , 254
" A tte n tio n ” tests, 14
A k ro n , O h io , P u b lic S ch o o ls survey (1964),
A tte n tiv e n ess, 72-73
3, 140; (1977), 4, 140
Alberm arle Paper Co. v. M oody , 160
B anfield, E d w ard, 125
B e h a v io r G e n e tic s A ss o c ia tio n , 4 6 -4 7 , 95 ,
A lpha te st (U .S. A rm y ), 17, 19, 21
A lte rn a tiv e fo rm testin g . 62
166
A m aya, M ary, 6, 248
A m e r ic a n A n th r o p o lo g i c a l A s s o c ia tio n
B eh av io r g en etic studies, 94-95
(A A A ), 2, 28
A m e ric a n C ollege T estin g (ACT), 1 0 ,2 2 ,1 5 1 .
Benbow , C am illa , 238
155
A m e ric a n E d u c a tio n a l R e s e a rc h A ss o c ia
Berger, Lisa, 237
Bell, D a n iel, 26, 31, 251-52, 256
Berg, C y n th ia , 53
B eta te st (U .S. A rm y), 17, 21
Bias in M ental Testing, 117, 217, 227, 229,
tio n (A E R A ), 4 6 -4 7 , 142
A m e ric a n F e d e ra tio n o f T each ers (A F T ), 141
231
A m e ric a n P sychological A sso c ia tio n , (APA),
2, 143, 160, 163. 170, 229; C o m m itte e o n
B inet, A lfred, 13, 16, 51, 81-82
B in e t-H e n ri a p p ro a c h , 13-14, 51
E d u c a tio n a l U ses o f Tests w ith D isad
B in e t-S im o n scale, 14-16, 67 , 141
v a n ta g e d S tu d e n ts , 4 5 ; C o m m itte e o n
B io d ata, 8
B io m etrical analysis, 86, 9 3-94
M en ta l a n d P h y sical Tests, 13; 46-47
American Scientist , 283
B lack-w hite IQ differen c e , 105-34, 182, 254
A m e ric a n S o cio lo g ical A sso c ia tio n (A SA ),
B la c k - w h ite te s t s c o r e d if f e r e n c e s , 4 -7 ,
105-34. 175-80, 182
4 6-47
B lock d esig n test, 72
B lock, N .J., 53, 55, 57, 66, 72-73, 119
B lo o m , B en jam in , 25
“A m e ric a n Way o f Testing, T h e ,” 240
A n a ly sis-o f-v arian ce m o d e l, 83
A n a sta si, A n n e , 61, 64, 110, 132
B ock, R . D a rre ll, 126, 182
A nxiety, 73, 121
A p titu d e -a c h ie v e m e n t d is tin c tio n , 5 9 -6 2 ,
B o eth , R ic h a rd , 213, 229
Boston Globe, 178, 181
237, 241
B o u ch a rd , T h o m a s , 87, 90, 94
A p titu d e test, 59-61
A r m e d F o rc e s Q u a lif y in g T e st (A F Q T ),
B ow doin C ollege, 10
B rig h am , C arl, 18-20
175-77
303
304
The IQ Controversy
B rim , O rville, 140, 147
“ C o n tro v e rs y O v e r T e stin g F la re s A g a in ,”
Brown v. the Board o f Education , 23
B u c k le y A m e n d m e n t. S ee E d u c a tio n a l
210
Bulletin o f the A tom ic Scientists, 283
C raw fo rd , D e m o n d , 6
C reativ ity, 56, 58-59, 108
C rim s o n , 1
B u rt, Sir C yril, 30-31, 51, 75, 8 9-90, 94, 132,
C ro n b a c h , Lee, 132
R ig h ts a n d P riv acy A ct o f 1974
134, 192, 215, 217, 219-20, 230-31, 233,
C ro u se, Jam e s, 152, 237
281
C u ltu ra l bias, 3, 27, 72, 105, 107-9, 111,
113-14, 122, 220-21, 227, 240, 242-43
C a lifo rn ia Test o f M en ta l M atu rity , 142
C apacity, in n a te , 44
C ap a c ity to le a rn , 4 3 , 56, 5 8-59, 74
C a rro ll, Jo h n , 70
Cultural Contradictions o f Capitalism The,
26, 251
C u ltu ra l d e p riv a tio n , 240
C u ltu ra l differences, 127
C u ltu ra l d isad v a n ta g e , 107-9, 111
C a rte r-S a ltz m a n , L ouise,, 97
C u ltu ra l fam iliarity, 113
C attell, Jam e s M cK een , 12-13
C u ltu re -fa ir test, 23 , 6 1 ,110
C attell, R a y m o n d , 70, 132
C u ltu re -fre e test, 23
C attell-ty p e testin g , 12-13
C u ltu re loading, 110-11, 114, 232
C BS Evening News, 179, 229
C u ltu re specificity, 107, 110
C BS Morning News, 23 3 , 2 42-43
C BS SO Minutes, 243
D a rw in , C h arle s, 11
Century M agazine, 44
C ivil R ig h ts A ct o f 1964, T itle VI, 4, 7
D avis, A llison, 23
Civil rig h ts m o v e m e n t, 26, 179
D e p a r tm e n t o f D efense, U .S ., 175-76, 178,
180
C h ase, A llen, 219, 221
C h in e se civil service e x a m in a tio n s, II
C h o m sk y , N o a m , 254
D e tte rm a n , D o uglas, 45, 52, 54-55
D ifferen tial A p titu d e Test, 142
D ifferen tial P re d ic tio n bias, 115-19
Choosing Elites, 153
Christian Science Monitor, 2 46-47
D ifferen tial valid ity bias, 115-19
C ivil rights, 251-52
D ig it sp an tests, 72
C ivil R ig h ts A ct o f 1964, T itle V II, 159-62,
D io n n e , E.J., Jr., 206
179
C la rk , K e n n e th , 231
“ D is ju n c tio n o f re a lm s,” 26, 31
D octer, R ic h a rd , 139
C lass d ifferen ces, 121, 124-25,
D o m in a n c e , 84, 86
C leary, T. A n n e , 52-53
D o p p e lt, J e ro m e , 231-32
C o ac h in g , SAT, 241; softw are, 243
D w o rk in , G e ra ld , 53, 55, 57, 66, 72-73, 119
C o d in g , study, 184-92, 270-79
“ D y sg en ic tre n d s ,” 29
C o d in g , test, 72
C o g n itiv e S cien ce Society, 4 6 -4 7 , 57, 166
Eaves, L.J., 94
C o lle g e E n t r a n c e E x a m i n a t i o n
E b b in g h au s, 13
B o ard
(C EEB ), 9, 22, 154, 234, 241
C o lv in , S.S., 4 3-44
Ebel, R o b e rt, 146
C om m ittee Against Racism (CAR), 125
E c k la n d , B ruce, 125
E c o n o m ic bias, 121
C o m p e n sa to ry e d u c a tio n , 2 6 -2 7 , 100, 218,
E ditor and Publisher, 283
22 2 , 2 26-27
C o m p re h e n sio n , 13
E d so n , Lee, 218
Congressional Directory, 283
E d u c a b le m e n ta lly r e t a r d e d ( E M T ), 5,
149-51, 163
C o n te n t an aly sis, 183-201, 203-48
C o n te n t bias, 113-15
E d u c a tio n fo r A ll H a n d ic a p p e d C h ild re n
A ct o f 1975, 6, 29, 150
C o n tin u u m o f C u ltu ra l Specificity, 110
E d u c a tio n a l R ig h ts a n d P rivacy A c t o f 1974
C o n tin u u m o f E x p e rim en ta l Specificity, 110
(B u ckley A m e n d m e n t), 147, 157
Index
305
E d u c a tio n a l Testing S ervice (E T S f 3, 10, 60,
G a n s, H e rb e rt, 179, 197
114, 152, 164, 2 3 4 , 2 4 1 -4 3 , 2 4 8 ; d is
c lo su re policy, 239
Efficiency, 31, 33
E g a lita rian ism , 32-33
G a rd n e r, H o w ard , 37, 52
G a rre tt, H en ry , 24
G e n e -e n v iro n m e n t co v aria n ce , 85-86
G e n e -e n v iro n m e n t in te ra c tio n , 79, 86, 122,
E h rlich , P a u l R ., 221
E m p lo y m e n t te stin g , 7 -8, 11, 22, 46, 117,
244-45
128
G e n e ra l know ledge, 56, 59
G e n e ra l psychology, 12-13
Encyclopedia Brilannica, 231
G e n e tic d e te rm in a n ts , 1, 105
E n v iro n m e n t, 20-21, 25
E n v iro n m e n ta l a d a p ta tio n , 56, 58-59
G e n e tic in flu ences, 121-30
G e n o ty p e , 79, 85
G o a l-d ire c te d n ess, 56, 59
E n v iro n m e n ta l v a ria n c e, 8 4-85, 96-100, 121,
127-28
E qual E d u c a tio n O p p o rtu n ity C o m m issio n
(E E O C ), 7, 160-61
G o d d a rd , H . H „ 15-17, 19, 82
G o ld e n R u le In su ra n c e C o m p a n y , 114
“ G o ld e n R u le ” p ro c e d u re , 114-15
E quality, 31
G o ld m a n , E ric, 253
E pistasis, 84
E p stein , Jay, 181
E rle n m ey e r-K im lin g , L.. 94
G o le m a n , D a n ie l, 238
Essay-type a c h ie v e m e n t test, 22
G o slin , D av id , 141, 145-47
E th n ic g ro u p d ifferen ces, 106, 124, 179-83
G o u ld , S te p h e n Jay, 18-19, 122, 131-32, 134,
E x p e rt o p in io n , p o litics of, 130-34; survey,
G o o d fie ld , J u n e , 256
G o rd o n , R o b e rt, 61
1 8 2 ,2 1 3 , 2 55, 258
45-4 9 , 55-75
E ugenics, 11-12. 18, 24, 29, 213
G o urlay, N eil, 94
G ra d e p o in t average (G PA ), 152-54
E vans, M . S ta n to n , 233
G r a d u a t e M a n a g e m e n t A d m is s io n T e s t
E ysenck, H an s, 94, 125, 131-32, 134, 217,
219, 233
(G M A T), 10, 155
G ra d u a te R ec o rd E x a m in a tio n (G R E ), 151,
155
F a c to r analysis, 6 8-69
G rad y , Ju d g e, 34-35
F a c to r X , 127
G ra h a m , R o b e rt. 29, 224, 229
“ F airT est,” 3, 10
F e d e r a l S e rv ic e E n t r a n c e E x a m in a tio n
G re v e , F ra n k , 181-82
(FSEE), 8
F ederal T rad e C o m m is sio n (F T C ), 144, 155,
196, 243
F e ld m a n , M .W ., 96-97
Griggs v. Duke Power C o ., 7, 159, 244
G uidelin es on E m ploym ent Testing Pro
cedures (E E O C ), 7, 160
G u ilfo rd , J.P., 69-70, 132
G u sk in , S a m u e l, 151
F e ld m a n , S. Shirley, 221
Figure a n alo g ies, 70
H alf-sib lin g studies, 89, 91
Fine, B en jam in , 2 2-23, 25
H a m m o n d , Ray, 120, 130
Fiske, E d w ard B„ 210, 215, 222, 237
H a rv a rd B usiness S ch o o l, 10
F ly n n , Jam e s, 80
H a rv a rd C ollege, 10
F ran k , R eu v e n , 181
H arvard Educational Review (HER), 1-2,
F red rick so n , G eo rg e M ., 219
Free e n te rp rise , 253
F ree m a n . F ran k . 44
F ried rich s, R o b e rt, 129
2 9 ,9 3 , 184, 188, 192-93, 197, 226
H aw k in s, D avid, 217. 219
H a w th o rn e W orks p ro je c t, 22
H e ad S ta rt p ro g ra m , 25, 27, 97, 127-28, 225
Fulker. D.W ., 9 3-94
H earn sh aw , L.S., 31
Fulks, D avid, 231
H eb b . D o n a ld . 79
H eber, R ic h ard . 97. 99-100, 145
G a lto n , Francis. 11-12, 51
H ech in g er, Fred, 238
306
The IQ Controversy
H e n ri, V ictor, 13
Iow a C h ild W elfare R ese arch S ta tio n , 97-98
H ereditary Genius, 11
“ IQ ,” 28
H eredity, 20-21
IQ Controversy, The, 53
IQ Heritability, and Inequality, 53
IQ Myth, The, 192, 208, 214, 229, 231-32,
H e r ita b ility o f in te llig e n c e , 1-3, 2 7 , 3 0 ,
36-37, 44, 79-100, 123-24, 193, 196, 199,
215-34; e stim a te s of, 9 3-96
H e rn ste in , R ic h a rd , 28-31, 3 3-34, 6 5 , 100,
106, 125, 131-32, 134, 182, 2 0 0 , 2 04-6,
24 5 , 279, 282
“ I.Q . Tests O n c e A gain D is tu rb E d u c a to rs ,”
209
213, 215, 217-34, 247, 251, 258, 276
H illia rd . Dr. A sa, 114
Jarv ik , Lissy, 94
H isp a n ic test ta k e rs, 175-76, 178, 182, 281
Hobson v. Hansen, 4-5
H o d g so n , G odfrey, 217
H o lm e n , M a rtin , 139
H olziger, K arl, 83
Je n c k s, C h risto p h e r,
15 2,218
J e n s e n , A rth u r, 1-3,
70-71, 93, 97-98,
119, 122-23, 125,
“ H o w M u ch C a n We B oost IQ a n d S ch o las
tic A c h iev e m e n t? ” , 1, 26, 29, 184
H o w ard , Jeff, 120, 130
65-66, 74, 85, 87, 94,
11, 26-29, 31, 33. 63,
100, 105-6, 110-11, 117,
127, 129, 131-32, 134,
147, 184, 188, 192-93, 197, 200, 204-8,
213, 215, 217-34, 237, 247-48, 251, 254,
258, 276, 282
H o u ts, P au l J„ 209
“je n se n is m , n. T h e T h e o ry th a t IQ Is D e te r
H u m p h re y s , Lloyd, 132, 232
H u n t, J. M cV., 24
H u n te r. J o h n . 65, 117
H u n te r, R o n d a , 65
m in e d L argely by th e G e n e s ,” 2, 79
Jin k s, J.L .. 93-94
J o h n s H o p k in s M edical School, 10
Journal o f Educational Psychology, 43, 45
J u n g e b lu t, A n n , 156
Id io t savants, 71
Illin o is In su ra n c e A g en t L icen sin g Test, 14
Im a g in a tio n , 13
K ag an , J e ro m e , 206, 230
Im ag in ativ en ess, 14
Im m ig ra n t d a ta , 18-19
K a m in . L eon, 18-19, 30, 89-90, 92-93, 98,
131-32, 134, 181-82, 189, 192-93, 206,
213, 217, 223, 230, 247-48, 255, 258
Im m ig ra tio n A ct o f 1924, 18-19
K a p la n , Stanley, 239, 243
“ In n a te in fe rio rity ” erro r, 228
K litg a a rd . R o b e rt, 153
In d iv id u alism , 197
K o ch , E d w ard , 9
In d iv id u a l psychology, 13
K o n n er, M elvin, 122
Inequality, 74, 218
Ingle, D w ight, 24
L'Annee Psychologique, 13
Intelligence and Experience, 24
“ L a P sychologie In d iv id u e lle ,” 13
La R aza, 178
“ In te llig e n c e a n d Its M e a s u re m e n t” s y m
p o siu m . 43
L arry P. v. Wilson Riles, 4-6, 11, 30, 34, 82,
In tellig en ce, d e fin itio n of, 51-57, 75
114, 141, 144, 150-51, 162-63,211,213-15,
In tellig en ce, g en eral (g), 67 -7 2 , 75
2 2 1 ,2 2 9 , 2 3 1 ,2 4 2 , 2 4 8 ,2 5 0
In te llig e n c e , n a tu re of, 35 -3 7 , 4 3 -7 5 , 193,
1 9 6 ,198
L aw rence. E .M ., 124
In tellig en ce q u o tie n t (IQ), 15
Law S c h o o l A d m is s io n s T est (L SA T ), 9,
151-53, 155
In tellig en ce test, 5 9-60
Layzer, D avid, 85
In te rn a tio n a l H e a lth E x h ib itio n (L o n d o n ,
Leahy, A lice, 124
1884), 12
In te rp e rso n a l sensitivity, 108
In te rv e n tio n p ro g ram s, 9 7 -1 0 0 ,1 2 8 . See also
H e ad S ta rt
In terv iew in g . 8
Legacy ofM allh u s The, 219, 221
L e h m a n n -H a u p t, C h risto p h e r, 221, 236
Lew is. I.A ., 197
L e w o n tin , R ic h a rd , 86. 96-97, 123
L icen sing ex am s, 245
Index
L ichter. L in d a, 179, 283
M o tiv a tio n a l bias, 119-21
L ichter, R o b e rt, 179, 181, 25 6 , 283
M o tiv a tio n a l v ariables, 22-23
L indzey, G a rd n e r, 85
L inguistic c o m p e te n c e , 56, 59
L inn, R o b e rt. 117, 153
L ip p m a n n , W alter, 20, 44, 52
M o y n ih an , D an iel P a trick , 125
M u ltip le c h o ice test, 22
“ M u ltip le in tellig en ces,” 37
M u lti-fa c to r th eory, 69-71
L o eh lin , J o h n C „ 85, 87. 94, 126
M u ltiv a ria te an alysis. 265-66
L o rg e -T h o rn d ik e In tellig en ce test, 142
M usical a p titu d e , 108
Los Angeles Times, 178, 197
M yth o f Measurability, The, 3
307
Low en, D an iel. 239, 243
M ac h in e scoring. 21
M acK en zie, B rian, 126
M ac M illa n , x, 151
N ader. R alp h . 3 ,9 , 114, 157-58. 19 6 ,2 3 6 -3 7 ,
23 9 -4 2 , 247-48
N a irn , A llan , 9, 154, 236-37, 240
N a k aso n e , P rim e M inister, 182-83
M ain stre a m in g , 29
Nation, 253
M aste r P lan fo r S pecial E d u c a tio n . See E d u
N a tio n a l A c ad e m y o f S ciences (N A S), 29,
c a tio n fo r All H a n d ic a p p e d C h ild re n
A ct o f 1975
M a th e m a tic a l c o m p e ten c e . 56, 59, 70, 74
M athew s, Jessica T u c h m a n , 240
117, 1 5 2 ,2 0 5 , 2 2 1 ,2 2 8 , 245
N a tio n a l A sso ciatio n fo r th e A d v a n ce m e n t
o f C o lo re d P eople (N A A C P), 3, 114. 221;
Legal D efense F u n d , 5
M azes, 72
N a tio n a l C o u n cil o n M e a s u re m e n t in E d u
M cC lellan d , 214
M cG u e, M atthew , 87, 94
M c G u rk , F ran k , 24
M cN em ar. Q u in n , 98
M cW illiam s, W ilson C „ 205
M e a s u re m e n t erro r, 63, 85
c atio n (N C M E ), 46-47
N a tio n a l E d u c a tio n A sso ciatio n (N E A ), 3,
141, 162, 1 96 ,2 1 0 , 221
N a tio n a l O p in io n R e s e a rc h
(N O R C ), 175
N a tio n a l P u b lic R ad io , 246-47
C e n te r
M e a su re m e n t, e rro r-free, 63
N a tio n a l R esearch C o u n cil (N R C ), 164
M edia Elite, The, 179
Nature, 283
N B C Nightly News, 179, 214, 243
N B C Prim e Tim e Saturday, 229, 231
M ed ic a l C o lleg e A d m is sio n Test (M C A T ),
9-10, 152, 155
M em ory , 56, 59; ro te, 6 9-70
“ M en ta l q u o tie n t,” 15
“ N ig h t L ight o n B lack I.Q .,” 222
M en ta l speed, 56, 59
"M e n ta l te sts,” 12
N ew s m e d ia accuracy, 246-48
“ N ew S n o b b e ry ,” 20
M ercer, J a n e , 114, 206, 211
Newsweek, 179, 183, 185, 189, 199-200, 213,
M eritocracy , 31-33, 125, 249, 251
M essick, S am u el, 156
“ M etric al Scale o f Intelligence.” See B inetS im o n scale
" M e tro -A m e ric a n s,” 253
M ilw au k e e P ro jec t, 9 7 , 99 -1 0 0 , 128, 145,
218, 226
M ism easure o f Man, The, 3, 18, 122
M isuse, test, 36-37
M ohr, C h arle s, 177
M oore, Elsie G .J., 126, 182
“ M o re a n d M o re , th e IQ Id e a is Q u e s
tio n e d ,” 23
M o rto n , G . N e w to n . 94
New Republic, 20
22 5 -2 9 , 242, 244, 246, 283
N ew Y ork C ity Police D e p a rtm e n t serg ea n t s
e x am , 8-9, 244, 250
New York Review o f Books, 253, 257
New York Times, 2. 28-30, 34, 177, 183, 185,
1 8 8 -8 9 , 1 92, 193, 196, 199, 2 0 4 - 7 ,
20 9 -1 3 , 215-17, 2 3 4 -2 3 9 , 241, 2 4 4 -4 7 ,
2 5 7 , 281-83
New York Tim es Book Review, 219, 221
N ew York Tim es M agazine, 2-3, 22-23, 79,
217, 2 2 2 , 240, 279
None o f the Above, 155-56, 236
N u m e r ic a l a b ility , 6 9 . S ee also M a th e
m a tic a l c o m p e te n c e
308
The IQ Controversy
N u m e ric a l o p e ra tio n s, 175
R acial differences, 124, 127-128
R acial d is c rim in a tio n , 4-5, 7-8, 124. See also
R acial bias
O b je ct assem b ly tests, 72
O e h rn , 13
R acial in te g ra tio n , 197
O liver, D o n , 214-15
R acism . 2, 254-55
Omni, 283
On the Origin o f Species, 11
R asp b erry , W illia m , 244
O tis, A rth u r, 16
O w en , D avid, 155-57, 236
R ath er, D a n , 208, 230, 232, 288
R a u d e n b u s h , S.W., 145
R av en s P rogressive M atrices, 61, 110-11
R ea g a n a d m in is tra tio n , 176-77
P a ra g ra p h c o m p re h e n sio n s , 175
R e a c tio n -tim e m e a su re m e n t, 12-13, 71, 110
P.4SE v. Hannon, 34
Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, 184,
P ayne, E thel, 233
P e a b o d y P ic tu re V o c a b u la ry T est (P P V T ),
110-11
P e c k h a m , J u d g e R o b e r t, 5 -6 , 3 4 -3 5 , 82,
150-51
269
R easo n in g ,
R easo n in g ,
R ea so n in g ,
R ea so n in g ,
d e d u ctiv e, 69
in d u c tiv e , 69
a rith m e tic , 175
q u a n tita tiv e , 106
P e rcep tu al sp eed , 69
R eg ression analyses, 168-69
Persistence, 73
Reign o f ETS, The, 9, 154, 158, 236-37
P h e n o ty p e , 79, 84
R eliability, 62-63
Physical h e alth , 73
Piag et, J e a n , 24
P ic tu re c o m p le tio n , 72
P ic tu re d e sc rip tio n , 14
R e s ta n d a rd iz a tio n , 112
R o b in so n , M ax, 243
R o se, R ic h ard , 91
P lo m in , R o b e rt, 85
R o th m a n , Stanley, 179, 256, 283
R ensberger, B oyce, 219
Porter, D o u g las, 152
Poverty, 25
Safire, W illiam , 244
P ractical in tellig en ce, 45
Sanday, Peggy, 276-77
P rim a ry m e n ta l a b ilities, 69
P rin c e to n Review , 156-57
P rin c ip a l-c o m p o n e n t analysis, 265-66
P ro b lem c o m p re h e n sio n , 72
Scarr, S a n d ra , 97, 127-28, 130
S c h a k n e, R o b e rt, 214
Sch n eider, W illia m , 197
S ch o lastic A p titu d e Test (SAT), 3, 9, 22, 60,
P ro b lem solving, 44 -4 5 , 56, 74
107, 151, 153, 155, 164, 193, 196-198,
Pro fessio n al a n d A d m in istra tiv e C a re e r Ex
23 4 -44
a m in a tio n (PACE), 8, 159, 244
Profile o f American Youth, A, 175-78, 182-83
Psychological Bulletin, 98
“ P sy c h o lo g ic al T ests— A S c ie n tis t’s R e p o rt
o n R ace D ifferen c e s,” 24
“ S ch o o l A b ility Tests F lu n k in g O u t? ” , 213
Science, 24, 30
Science and Politics o f IQ, The, 3, 18, 30
Science Digest, 283
Science 86, 283
Psychological Testing, 64
Science fo r th e People, 122
Psych o lo g ists fo r Social A ctio n , 2
Scientific American, 283
P sy ch o m etics, 25, 52, 57, 68, 75
S c o tt, W alter D ill, 22
P u b lic B ro a d ca stin g S y stem , 2 46-47
Public Interest, 237
Selectio n m o d e l bias, 118
Selective breed in g . See E ugenics
S e n so ry acuity, 56
Pygmalion in the Classroom, 145-46
S e n so ry m e a su re m e n t, 12-13
“ Q u e stio n s P a re n ts S h o u ld Be A sk in g ,” 211
Series c o m p le tio n , 70, 110
S evareid, Eric, 229
Race Bomb, The, 221
R acial bias, 4, 8. See also C u ltu ra l bias
Sharp, Stella, 13
Shockley, W illiam , 28-29,, 33, 125, 182, 189,
Index
309
192, 2 0 4 , 215, 217, 2 1 9 -2 2 6 , 2 2 8 -2 9 ,
Technology Review, 283
231-34, 247, 27 6 , 281
T e rm a n , Lew is, 16-17,, 20-21, 43-44, 53, 57,
Shuey, A udrey. 24
67, 82, 98
S ibling stu d ies, 84, 89-90, 92
Test a d m in is tra tio n : group. 16-17; in d iv id
S im o n , T h e o d o re , 14, 16, 51
Singer, E velyn, 180
60 M inutes , 30, 192, 229-31, 233
Skeels, H a ro ld , 97-98
Test bias, 3, 34, 36, 105, 107-21, 182, 245
“ T estin g A nxiety,” 245
T estin g in te rn a tio n a l, 245-46
S k o d ak , M arie, 97-98
ual, 16-17,21
S lack, W arner, 152
Testing o f Negro Intelligence, The, 24
Testing Trap, The, 236
Social c o m p e te n c e , 45
T est m isu se, 209-15
S o c ia l m o b ility h y p o th e s is , 1 2 4 -2 5 (a ls o
Test overuse, 245
H e rrn s te in , C h a p te r 2)
Social v ariab les, 22
T est-retest, 62
“ Tests: H o w G o o d ? H ow Fair?,” 242
S ociety fo r th e P sychological S tu d y o f Social
Test use, 209-15
Issues (SPSSI), 2
S o c io e c o n o m ic s ta tu s (SE S), 6 6 , 7 2 , 106
(a n d in telligence), 124
T h u rsto n e , L .L ., 6 9-70
T im e, 3 4 , 1 8 2 -8 3 , 185, 189, 2 0 0 , 2 2 5 ,
22 7 -2 8 , 2 4 1 ,2 6 9 , 2 8 3 ,2 8 8
S o lo m o n , R o b e rt, 242
Tim es (L o n d o n ), 30
S om m er, B arb ara, 99
T itch e n e r, E. B., 13
S o m m er, R o b e rt, 99
S o u th e rn R eg io n al C o u n c il, 222
T h o rn d ik e , R o b e rt L., 132
Sowell, T h o m a s , 222
T ria rc h ic T h eo ry , 37, 45
S patial ability, 56, 69
T ru th -in -testin g , 241; law, 9, 157-58, 239
S patial-v isu al ability, 106
Tw ins, d izy g o tic (D Z ) (fra tern al), 83-84, 87,
S p e a rm a n , C h arles, 67-69
T rack in g , 4-5, 17, 29, 163
91-93
S pecial n e ed s stu d e n ts, 5-7, 14-15, 17, 34
Spencer, H e rb e rt, 51
Tw ins, m o n o z y g o tic (M Z ) (identical), 83-84,
S p e rm b a n k , high IQ , 224
T w in stu d ies, 21, 30. 83-93
“ S p rin g S u rv ey o f E d u c a tio n ,” 2 10-11
T w o -facto r th e o ry o f intelligence, 68
89-93
S puhler, J.N ., 85
Stability, 62-63
U n ite d S tates A rm y : M e th o d s o f P sycholog
S ta b ility an d Change in Hum an Charac
teristics, 25
ical E x a m in in g o f R e c ru its c o m m itte e ,
S ta n fo rd R ev isio n o f th e B in et-S im o n scale
U n ite d S tates C ivil R ig h ts C o m m issio n , 6
U n ite d S tates C ivil S ervice C o m m issio n , 8
(S ta n fo rd -B in e t test), 16, 20-21, 59, 67,
70-71, 80, 112, 114, 149
17; tests, 16-21, 33
U n ite d S ta te s E m p lo y m e n t Service. 22
Standards fo r Educational and Psychologi
cal tests (APA), 7, 160
U.S. News and World Report, 24, 179, 183,
S ta n d a rd iz a tio n , test, 111-13
U n ite d S tates S u p re m e C o u rt, 244
Stanley, J u lia n , 238
S te rn , W illiam , 15, 58
S te rn b e rg , R o b e rt. 37, 45, 52-53
S tren io , A n d re w J. 236
S tu d e n ts fo r a D e m o c ra tic So ciety (SDS), 1
S tudy o f American Intelligence, A, 18
Suggestibility, 14
S urvey o f e x p e rt o p in io n , 46-51
S u ssm a n n , L y n n e. 177-78
Tangled Wing, The, 122
185, 1 8 9 ,2 1 3 ,2 1 5 ,2 2 5 -2 6 , 246, 269
V alid atio n , 7, 53, 160
Validity, test, 18, 21, 27, 34, 37, 62, 6 4 -6 8 , 74
Vectors o f Mind. The, 69
V erbal ability, 45. 69, 106
V erbal a n alo g ies, 70
V erbal in tellig ence, 45
V erbal m em o ry , 14
V erbal s im ila ritie s/d ifferen c e s tests, 70, 72
V ern o n , Philip, 70, 86, 90, 99, 126, 132
310
The IQ Controversy
V o cab u lary tests, 72
W ade, N ich o las, 246
W allace, A n th o n y , 252
W allace, M ike, 230
W aller, J e ro m e , 66
Wall Street Journal, 183, 185, 188, 192-93,
199, 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 , 212, 215-16, 2 3 4 , 2 4 4 ,
24 6 , 2 6 9 , 2 8 1 ,2 8 3
W ard , Jam e s, 141
W ash in g to n , D .C . p u b lic schools, 4
Washington Post, 28, 176-79, 183-85, 188,
1 9 2 -9 3 , 199, 2 0 4 -7 , 2 0 9 -1 3 , 2 1 5 -1 7 ,
234-41, 2 4 4 , 269, 281-83
W ech sler tests, 73, 80, 114
W estin g h o u se L e a rn in g C o rp o ra tio n , 27
W einberg, R ic h a rd , 128, 130
W eiss, C aro l, 180, 183
W eiss, J o h n , 3
“ W h atev e r B ecam e o f ‘G e n iu se s’?” , 227
W illiam s, R o b e rt, 206, 231, 248
W ilso n , G eo rg e, 176-80
W irtz , W illa rd , 238, 241, 243
W issler, C la rk , 13, 67
W ith e rs p o o n , Roger, 224
What is Intelligence?, 45
W heeler, T h o m a s C ., 240
Washington Post M agazine, 245
Washington v. Davis, 160
W o rd fluency, 69
W ec h sle r A d lilt In te llig e n c e S cale (W AIS),
21, 73
W rig h t, Ju d g e Skelly, 4
W echsler B lock D esign test, 91
W u n d t, W ilh e lm , 12-13
W o rd know ledge, 175
W ro n g c rite rio n bias, 119
W echsler, D av id , 21, 73, 132
W e c h sle r In te llig e n c e S c a le fo r C h ild re n
(W IC S-R ), 71-73, 112-14, 142, 149
Y erkes, R o b e rt, 16-17
The IQ Controversy

The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy

Transcription

Similar documents

Spend $25 • Save $500 Addison`s, Sophia`s, Bleu, Harpo`s, The

workshop - Westcoast Hot Yoga

`Nothing naked,` but just enough

Beth Ahm Israel at David Posnack JCC

Utilitarian Fiction

Ko`olau Spring Bridal Open House 2015

AREA MAP - 22 Caton

Formats - IZYM-TV

Preview - stanfordhouse.com.hk

Klipsun Magazine, 1968, Volume 01, Issue 02