Research in educational psychology consistently finds a relationship between intelligence and academic performance. However, in recent decades, educational fields, including gifted education, have resisted intelligence research, and there are some experts who argue that intelligence tests should not be used in identifying giftedness. Hoping to better understand this resistance to intelligence research, we created a survey of beliefs about intelligence and administered it online to a sample of the general public and a sample of teachers. We found that there are conflicts between currently accepted intelligence theory and beliefs from the American public and teachers, which has important consequences on gifted education, educational policy, and the effectiveness of interventions.
AmbroseD.Van Tassel-BaskaJ.ColemanL. J.CrossT. L. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 453–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300402
2.
Antonelli-PontiM.VersutiF. M.Da SilvaJ. A. (2018). Teachers’ perception about genes and behavior. Estudios de Psicologia, 35(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000400009
3.
ArchambaultF. X.WestbergK. L.BrownS. W.HallmarkB. W.ZhangW.EmmonsC. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329301600203
4.
BattyG. D.DearyI. J.GottfredsonL. S. (2007). Premorbid (early life) IQ and later mortality risk: Systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology, 17(4), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.07.010
5.
BaudsonT. G.PreckelF. (2016). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on achievement-relevant dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216647115
6.
BeaverK. M.SchwartzJ. A.NedelecJ. L.ConnollyE. J.BoutwellB. B.BarnesJ. C. (2013). Intelligence is associated with criminal justice processing: Arrest through incarceration. Intelligence, 41(5), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.001
7.
BouchardT. J.Jr. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits: A survey. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 148-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00295.x
8.
CanivezG. L. (2016). Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for understanding multidimensional constructs and test interpretation. In SchwizerK.DiStefanoC. (Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements (pp. 247–271). Hogrefe Publishing.
9.
CarmanC. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x12472602
10.
CastejonJ. L.PerezA. M.GilarR. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of Project Spectrum activities. A second-order g factor or multiple intelligences?Intelligence, 38(5), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.07.002
CrosswaiteM.AsburyK. (2019). Teacher beliefs about the aetiology of individual differences in cognitive ability, and the relevance of behavioural genetics to education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12224
13.
CucinaJ. M.PeytonS. T.SuC.ByleK. A. (2016). Role of mental abilities and mental tests in explaining high-school grades. Intelligence, 54, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.007
DearyI. J.WhitemanM. C.StarrJ. M.WhalleyL. J.FoxH. C. (2004). The impact of childhood intelligence on later life: Following up the Scottish Mental Surveys of 1932 and 1947. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.130
17.
DillmanD. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
FloydR. G.ReynoldsM. R.FarmerR. L.KranzlerJ. H. (2013). Are the general factors from different child and adolescent intelligence tests the same? Results from a five-sample, six-test analysis. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 383–401.
20.
GaleC. R.BattyG. D.TyneliusP.DearyI. J.RasmussenF. (2010). Intelligence in early adulthood and subsequent hospitalization for mental disorders. Epidemiology, 21(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c17da8
21.
GardnerH. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
22.
GardnerH. (2016). Multiple intelligences: Prelude, theory, and aftermath. In SternbergR. J.FiskeS. T.FossD. J. (Eds.), Scientists making a difference: One hundred eminent behavioral and brain scientists talk about their most important contributions (pp. 167–170). Cambridge University Press.
23.
GordonR. A. (1997). Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context. Intelligence, 24(1), 203–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90017-9
24.
GoslinD. A. (1967). Teachers and testing. Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
GottfredsonL. S. (1997a). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8
GottfredsonL. S. (2005). Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies. In FrisbyC. L.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 517–554). John Wiley.
28.
GottfredsonL. S. (2009). Logical fallacies used to dismiss the evidence on intelligence testing. In PhelpsR. P. (Ed.), Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing (pp. 11–65). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11861-001
HarrisJ. J.IIIFordD. Y. (1991). Identifying and nurturing the promise of gifted Black American children. The Journal of Negro Education, 60(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295529
32.
HeyderA.BergoldS.SteinmayrR. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717725493
33.
JensenA. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Praeger.
34.
JohnsonW.BouchardT. J.Jr.KruegerR. F.McGueM.GottesmanI. I. (2004). Just one g: Consistent results from three test batteries. Intelligence, 32(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00062-X
35.
JohnsonW.te NijenhuisJ.BouchardT. J.Jr. (2008). Still just 1 g: Consistent results from five test batteries. Intelligence, 36(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.06.001
36.
JonesB. D.RakesL.LandonK. (2013). Malawian secondary students’ beliefs about intelligence. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 785–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.716906
37.
KeithT. Z.KranzlerJ. H.FlanaganD. P. (2001). What does the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) measure? Joint confirmatory factor analysis of the CAS and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability (3rd edition). School Psychology Review, 30(1), 89–119.
38.
KendlerK. S.TurkheimerE.OhlssonH.SundquistJ.SundquistK. (2015). Family environment and the malleability of cognitive ability: A Swedish national home-reared and adopted-away cosibling control study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(15), 4312–4617. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417106112
39.
KuncelN. R.HezlettS. A. (2010). Fact and fiction in cognitive ability testing for admissions and hiring decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410389459
40.
KuncelN. R.HezlettS. A.OnesD. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.148
41.
LipseyM. W.FarranD. C.DurkinK. (2018). Effects of the Tennessee Prekindergarten Program on children’s achievement and behavior through third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.005
42.
LubinskiD. (2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking shafts at a few critical points.”Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.405
43.
MarlandS. P.Jr. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented—Volume I: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education (ERIC No. ED056243). Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED056243.pdf
44.
MartschenkoD. (2019). DNA dreams’: Teacher perspectives on the role and relevance of genetics for education. Research in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523719869956
45.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719
NeisserU.BoodooG.BouchardT. J.Jr.BoykinA. W.BrodyN.CeciS. J.HalpernD. F.LoehlinJ. C.PerloffR.SternbergR. J.UrbinaS. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77
48.
NisbettR. E.AronsonJ.BlairC.DickensW.FlynnJ.HalpernD. F.TurkheimerE. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67(2), 130–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699
49.
PestaB. J.McDanielM. A.PoznanskiP. J.DeGrootT. (2015). Discounting IQ’s relevance to organizational behavior: The “somebody else’s problem” in management education. Open Differential Psychology, 35, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.26775/ODP.2015.05.26
50.
PetersS. J.MatthewsM. S.McBeeM. T.McCoachD. B. (2014). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Prufrock Press.
51.
PlominR. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press.
52.
ProtzkoJ. (2017). Raising IQ among school-aged children: Five meta-analyses and a review of randomized controlled trials. Developmental Review, 46, 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2017.05.001
ReeveC. L.CharlesJ. E. (2008). Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert views. Intelligence, 36(6), 681–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007
RindermannH.BeckerD.CoyleT. R. (2016). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Causes of international differences in cognitive ability tests. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399
57.
RindermannH.BeckerD.CoyleT. R. (2017). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: The FLynn effect and the future of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.061
58.
RindermannH.BeckerD.CoyleT. R. (2020). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts’ background, controversial issues, and the media. Intelligence, 78, Article 101406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
59.
RitchieS. (2015). Intelligence: All that matters. John Murray Learning.
60.
RitchieS. J.Tucker-DrobE. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253
61.
RobertsonS. G.PfeifferS. I.TaylorN. (2011). Serving the gifted: A national survey of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 48(8), 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20590
62.
RobinsonN. M. (2006). A report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 342–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000407
63.
SalaG.GobetF. (2017). When the music’s over. Does music skill transfer to children’s and young adolescents’ cognitive and academic skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 20, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.005
64.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. 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(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
65.
SchrothS. T.HelferJ. A. (2009). Practitioners’ conceptions of academic talent and giftedness: Essential factors in deciding classroom and school composition. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(3), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902000302
66.
SiegleD.WilsonH. E.LittleC. A. (2013). A sample of gifted and talented educators’ attitudes about academic acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x12472491
67.
SimonsD. J.BootW. R.CharnessN.GathercoleS. E.ChabrisC. F.HambrickD. Z.Stine-MorrowE. A. L. (2016). Do “brain-training” programs work?Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983
68.
SnydermanM.RothmanS. (1987). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.42.2.137
69.
SnydermanM.RothmanS. (1988). The IQ controversy: The media and public policy. Transaction Books.
70.
SpearmanC. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107
71.
StaufferJ. M.ReeM. J.CarrettaT. R. (1996). Cognitive-components tests are not much more than g: An extension of Kyllonen’s analyses. The Journal of General Psychology, 123(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1996.9921272
TermanL. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale. Houghton Mifflin.
74.
TermanL. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. I. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (2nd ed.). Stanford University Press.
von KárolyiC.Ramos-FordV.GardnerH. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 100–112). Allyn & Bacon.
81.
WalkerS. O.PlominR. (2005). The nature–nurture question: Teachers’ perceptions of how genes and the environment influence educationally relevant behaviour. Educational Psychology, 25(5), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500046697
82.
WarneR. T. (2016a). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360
WarneR. T.AstleM. C.HillJ. C. (2018). What do undergraduates learn about human intelligence? An analysis of introductory psychology textbooks. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000038
85.
WarneR. T.BurninghamC. (2019). Spearman’s g found in 31 non-Western nations: Strong evidence that g is a universal phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 145(3), 237–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000184
86.
WarneR. T. (in press). In the know: Debunking 35 myths about human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
87.
WaterhouseL. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1
88.
WolfT. H. (1973). Alfred Binet. The University of Chicago Press.
89.
ZaboskiB. A.IIKranzlerJ. H.GageN. A. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-horn-Carroll theory. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
