Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:06:52.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a Research Program on g in I–O Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Charles A. Scherbaum ,
Harold W. Goldstein ,
Kenneth P. Yusko ,
Rachel Ryan  and
Paul J. Hanges
Charles A. Scherbaum*
Affiliation:
Baruch College, City University of New York
Harold W. Goldstein
Affiliation:
Baruch College, City University of New York
Kenneth P. Yusko
Affiliation:
Marymount University
Rachel Ryan
Affiliation:
Baruch College, City University of New York
Paul J. Hanges
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, Baruch College, City University of New York, Box B 8-215, One Bernard Baruch Way, New York, NY 10010
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intelligence (i.e., g, general mental ability) is an individual difference that is arguably more important than ever for success in the constantly changing, ever more complex world of business (Boal, 2004; Gatewood, Field, & Barrick, 2011). Although the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology initially made substantial contributions to the study of intelligence and its use in applied settings (e.g., Hunter, 1980; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981), we have done relatively little in recent times about studying the nature of the intelligence construct and its measurement. Instead, we have focused predominately on using intelligence to predict performance outcomes and examine racial subgroup differences on intelligence test scores. Although the field of I–O psychology continues to approach intelligence at a surface level, other fields (e.g., clinical psychology, developmental and educational research, and neuropsychology) have continued to study this construct with greater depth and have consequently made more substantial progress in understanding this critical and complex construct. The purpose of this article is to note this lack of progress in I–O psychology and to challenge our field to mount new research initiatives on this critical construct.

Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 128 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Predicting individual differences in complex skill acquisition: Dynamics of ability determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 598–614.Google Scholar
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2002). Individual differences in working memory within a nomological network of cognitive and perceptual speed abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 567–589.Google Scholar
Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic performance. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 185–202). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar
Bartholomew, D. J. (2004). Measuring intelligence: Facts and fallacies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Baum, J. R., Bird, B. J., & Singh, S. (2011). The practical intelligence of entrepreneurs: Antecedents and a link with new venture growth. Personnel Psychology, 64, 397–425.Google Scholar
Binet, A., & Henri, V. (1895). La psychologie individuelle. L’Annee Psychologique, 2, 411–465.Google Scholar
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905/1916). New methods for diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals. In The development of intelligence children (E. S. Kite, Trans.) Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1911/1916). New investigation upon the measure of the intellectual level among school children. In The development of intelligence in children (E. S. Kite, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Boal, K. B. (2004). Strategic leadership. In Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J. & Burns, J. M. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 1497–1504). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists' Press. Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928–939.Google Scholar
Cattell, J. M. (1893). Tests of the senses and faculties. Educational Review, 5, 257–265.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1890). Mental tests and measurements. Mind, 15, 373–381.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., Rosenblum, T., de Bruyn, E., & Lee, D. L. (1997). A bio-ecological model of intellectual development: Moving beyond h2. In Sternberg, R. J. & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.), Minds in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 74–101). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Chen, J., & Gardner, H. (2005). Assessment based on multiple-intelligence theory. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 77–102). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar
Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Intelligence: A brief history. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar
Danemann, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–433.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. E., & Downing, C. L. (2000). Contemporary models of intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 34–49). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
DeNisi, A., Hitt, M. A. & Jackson, S. E. (2003). The knowledge-based approach to sustaining competitive advantage. In Jackson, S. E., Hitt, M. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Google Scholar
Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.Google Scholar
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Google Scholar
Fagan, J. F. (2000). A theory of intelligence as processing: Implications for society. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 168–179.Google Scholar
Fagan, J. F., & Holland, C. R. (2002). Equal opportunity and racial differences in IQ. Intelligence, 30, 361–387.Google Scholar
Fagan, J. F., & Holland, C. R. (2007). Racial equality in intelligence: Predictions from a theory of intelligence as processing. Intelligence, 35, 319–334.Google Scholar
Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L. (2005). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Google Scholar
Fleishman, E. A. (1966). Human abilities and the acquisition of skill. In Bilodeau, E. A. (Ed.), Acquisition of skill. New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Gatewood, R., Field, H., & Barrick, M. (2011). Human resource selection (6th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western. Google Scholar
Gatewood, R. D. & Feild, H. S. (2001). Human resource selection (5th ed.) Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.Google Scholar
Ghiselli, E. E. (1966). The validity of occupational aptitude tests. New York, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar
Goddard, H. H. (1913). The Kallikak family: A study in the heredity of feeble-mindedness. New York, NY: Macmillan. Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. W., Scherbaum, C. A., & Yusko, K. (2009). Adverse impact and measuring cognitive ability. In Outtz, J. (Ed.) Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes testing (pp. 95–134). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. W., Zedeck, S., & Goldstein, I. L. (2002). g: Is this your final answer? Human Performance, 15, 123–142.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, L. (1997a). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, L. (1997b). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79–132.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15, 25–46.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.Google Scholar
Haier, R. J. (2003). Brain imaging studies of intelligence: Individual differences and neurobiology. In Sternberg, R. J., Lautrey, J., & Lubart, T. I. (Eds.), Models of intelligence: International perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar
Heit, E., & Rotello, C. M. (2010). Relations between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 805–812.Google Scholar
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: Free Press. Google Scholar
Higgins, D. M., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Lee, A. G. (2007). Prefrontal cognitive ability, intelligence, big five personality, and the prediction of advanced academic and workplace performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 298–319.Google Scholar
Horn, J. L. (1976). Human abilities: A review of research and theory in the early 1970s. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 437–485.Google Scholar
Horn, J. L., & Blankson, N. (2005). Foundations for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 41–68). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1980). Test validation for 12,000 jobs: An application of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: U.S. Employment Service. Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitude, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340–362.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.Google Scholar
Irvine, S. H., & Kyllonen, P. C. (Eds.). (2002). Item generation and test development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Jeanneret, R. (1998). Ethical, legal, and professional issues for individual assessment. In Jeanneret, R. & Silzer, R. (Eds.), Individual psychological assessment: Predicting behavior in organizational settings. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1985). The nature of the black-white difference on various psychometric tests: Spearman's hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 193–263.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (2000). Testing: The dilemma of group differences. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 6, 121–128.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences. New York, NY: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A. S. (2000). Tests of intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 445–476). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Google Scholar
Kehoe, J. F. (2002). General mental ability and selection in private sector organizations: A commentary. Human Performance, 15, 97–106.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1959). The essential tension: Tradition and innovation in scientific research. In Taylor, C. (Ed.), The third University of Utah research conference on the identification of scientific talent (pp. 225–239). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C. (1996). Is working memory capacity Spearman's g? In Dennis, I. & Tapsfield, P. (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement (pp. 49–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior (4th ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole. Google Scholar
Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology (Monograph), 73, 753–777.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Situational judgment tests in high stakes settings: Issues and strategies with generating alternate forms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1043–1055.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2000). Intelligence and education. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 519–533). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Kepes, S., & Banks, G. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 566–570.Google Scholar
McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136–182). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar
McGrew, K. S., & Evans, J. (2004). Carroll Human Cognitive Abilities Project: Research Report No. 2. Internal and external factorial extensions to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities: A review of factor analytic research since Carroll's seminal 1993 treatise. St. Cloud, MN: Institutes of Applied Psychometrics. Google Scholar
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335–354.Google Scholar
Murphy, K., Cronin, B., & Tam, A. (2003). Controversy and consensus regarding the use of cognitive ability testing in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 660–671.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Much more than g. In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 3–30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Naglieri, J. A. (2005). The cognitive assessment system. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 441–460). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Intelligence revised. In Dillon, R. (Ed.), Handbook on testing (pp. 136–163). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Google Scholar
Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2005). Planning, attention, simultaneous, successive (PASS) theory: A revision of the concept of intelligence. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 120–135). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.Google Scholar
Offermann, L. R., & Gowing, M. K. (1993). Personnel selection in the future: The impact of changing demographics and the nature of work. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 385–417). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Outtz, J. L., & Newman, D. A. (2009). A theory of adverse impact. In Outtz, J. (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes testing (pp. 53–93). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
Pearlman, K., & Barney, M. F. (2000). Selection for a changing workplace. In Kehoe, J. F. (Ed.), Managing selection in changing organizations: Human resource strategies (pp. 3–72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Prabhakaran, V., Narayanan, K., Zhao, Z., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2000). Integration of diverse information in working memory within the frontal lobe. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 85–90.Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Dorsey, D. W., & Borman, W. C. (2003). Hiring for knowledge-based competition. In Jackson, S. E., Hitt, M. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage (pp. 155–177). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2002). g2K. Human Performance, 15, 3–24.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2007). Tests of cognitive ability. In Whetzel, D. L. & Wheaton, G. R. (Eds.), Applied measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management (pp. 131–159). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis/Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 518–524.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g. Personnel Psychology, 44, 321–332.Google Scholar
Reeve, C. L., & Hakel, M. D. (2002). Asking the right questions about g. Human Performance, 15, 47–74.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. B. (2001). High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative-action world. American Psychologist, 56, 302–318.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187–210.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. (2011). An interview with Frank Schmidt. The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 48, 21–29.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1981). Employment testing: Old theories and new research findings. American Psychologist, 36, 1128–1137.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.Google Scholar
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency. Google Scholar
Spearman, C. E. (1904). “General intelligence” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Intelligence and non-entrenchment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 1–16.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York, NY: Plume. Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3, 292–316.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical, and creative skills. Intelligence, 34, 321–350.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar
Tenopyr, M. L. (2002). Theory versus reality: Evaluation of g in the workplace. Human Performance, 15, 107–122.Google Scholar
Thorndike, R. M. (1959). Personnel selection. New York, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar
Thorndike, R. M. (1997). The early history of intelligence testing. In Flanagan, D. P., Genshaft, J. L., & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues. Chicago, IL: Riverside. Google Scholar
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth edition. Guide for administering and scoring. Chicago, IL: Riverside. Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Vernon, P. A., Wickett, J. C., Bazana, P. G., & Stelmack, R. M. (2000). The neuropsychology and psychophysiology of human intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 245–266). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. (2002). Agreements and disagreements on the role of general mental ability (GMA) in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Human Performance, 15, 212–231.Google Scholar
Wagner, J., & Hollenbeck, J. (1998). Organizational behavior: Securing competitive advantage. Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Wasserman, J. D., & Tulsky, D. S. (2005). A history of intelligence assessment. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1975). Intelligence defined and undefined: A relativistic appraisal. American Psychologist, 30, 135–139.Google Scholar
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery Revised Tests of Achievement: Standard and supplemental batteries. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Google Scholar
Zu, J., & Weiss, L. (2005). The Wechsler scales. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 297–324). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar