Research consistently reports a moderate to a strong relationship between intelligence and academic performance. For about a century, the concept of intelligence has often been used in the definition of giftedness and the identification of gifted students along with other data sources, although some experts are against it. An understanding of prospective teachers' beliefs about intelligence is important to unearth how they perceive intelligence and giftedness. We replicated Warne and Burton's (2020) study with 157 prospective Turkish teachers. They were selected using an online convenience sampling method from various departments of a faculty of education. Of the participants, 72.6% were female and 27.4% were male. We adapted Warne and Burton’s (2020) survey, translating it to Turkish and administered it online to understand the prospective teachers’ beliefs about intelligence as well as to examine if these beliefs differ across cultures. We found that the prospective teachers’ understanding was mostly in line with the original study as well as the mainstream views of intelligence. We also found similar results to the original study, regarding the components of intelligence. Like the original study, the Turkish sample showed an understanding of the relationship between education and intelligence; however, the items about biological and genetic influences on intelligence, the plausible causes of group differences, the life outcomes of intelligence, and a cross-cultural comparison of intelligence had a low response uniformity in both studies. Similar findings across samples may be attributed to common, popular views as well as similar textbooks or other resources used in both cultures. The samples (e.g., educational level and age) may be partially responsible for the differences in the findings across both cultures.
AnomalyJ.WinegardB. (2020). The egalitarian fallacy: Are group differences compatible with political liberalism?Philosophia, 48, 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-019-00129-w
2.
Antonelli-pontiM.VersutiF. M.Da SilvaJ. A. (2018). Teachers' perception about genes and behavior. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 35(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000400009
3.
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
4.
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
5.
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
Columbus Group. (1991, July). Unpublished transcript of the meeting of the Columbus group.
8.
CrossT. L. (2005). The social and emotional lives of gifted kids: Understanding and guiding their development. Prufrock Press.
9.
CrossT. L.ColemanL. J. (2014). School-based conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214521522
CrosswaiteM.AsburyK. (2019). Teacher beliefs about the aetiology of individual differences in cognitive ability, and the relevance of behavioural genetics to education. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12224
12.
CubanL. (2002). Oversold and underused computers in the classrooms (2nd edition). Harvard University Press.
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
14.
DaiD. Y. (2013). Excellence at the cost of social justice? Negotiating and balancing priorities in gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(2), 93–101.
DweckC. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
18.
DweckC. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
19.
DweckC. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
20.
EisenhartM.CuthbertA.ShrumJ.HardingJ. (2001). Teacher beliefs about their work activities: Policy implications. Theory and Practice, 27(2), 137e144.
21.
FivesH.BuehlM. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers' beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In HarrisK. R.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (2, pp. 471–499). American Psychological Association.
22.
GardnerH. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.
23.
GardnerH. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
24.
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.
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.
30.
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.
31.
GrantH.DweckC. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541
32.
GreenwaldA. G.DasguptaN.DovidioJ. F.KangJ.Moss-RacusinC. A.TeachmanB. (2022). Implicit-bias remedies: Treating discriminatory bias as a public-health problem. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23(1), 7–40. https://doi-org.proxy.bsu.edu/10.1177/15291006211070781
HarrisJ. J.FordD. 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
35.
HarrisonJ.LakinJ. M. (2018). Pre-service teachers' implicit and explicit beliefs about English language learners: An implicit association test study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.015
36.
HeyderA.BergoldS.SteinmayrR. (2018). Teachers' knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17, 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717725493
37.
HubbardR.ArmstrongJ. A. (1994). Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 233–248.
38.
JensenA. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Praeger.
JonesB. D.BryantL. H.SnyderJ. D.MaloneD. (2012). Preservice and inservice teachers’ implicit theories of intelligence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 87–101.
41.
KayaF. (2015). Teachers' conception of giftedness and special needs of gifted students. Education and Science, 40(177), 59–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.2885
42.
KayaF.JuntuneJ.StoughL. (2015). Intelligence and its relationship to achievement. Elementary Education Online, 14(3), 1060–1078. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.25436
43.
KinlawC. R.Kurtz-CostesB. (2007). Children's theories of intelligence: Beliefs, goals, and motivation in the elementary years. Journal of General Psychology, 134, 295–311. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.134.3.295-312
44.
KontosS.CarterK. R.OrmrodJ. E.CooneyJ. B. (1983). Reversing the revolving door: A strict interpretation of Renzulli’s definition of giftedness. Roeper Review, 6, 35–39.
45.
LeroyN.BressouxP.SarrazinP.TrouilloudD. (2007). Impact of teachers' implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 529–545.
46.
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
47.
LynottD.WoolfolkA. E. (1994). Teachers' implicit theories of intelligence and their educational goals. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(4), 253–264.
48.
MatsumotoD. (1994). People: Psychology from a cultural perspective. Brooks/Cole.
49.
McIntoshD. E.DixonF. A.PiersonE. E. (2018). Use of intelligence tests in the identification of giftedness. In FlanaganD. P.McDonoughE. M. (Eds), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 587–607). The Guilford Press.
50.
MemonM. A.TingH.CheahJ.ThurasamyR.ChuahF.ChamT. H. (2020). Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 4(2), 1–20.
51.
MooiE.SarstedtM.Mooi‐ReciI. (2018). Market research: The process, data, and methods using Stata. Springer.
52.
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
53.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L. (2007). A multitrait-multimethod validation of the implicit association test: Implicit and explicit attitudes are related but distinct constructs. Experimental Psychology, 54(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.1.14
54.
PajaresM. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
55.
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
RenzulliJ. S. (2020). The catch-a-wave theory of adaptability: Core competencies for developing gifted behaviors in the second machine age of technology. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 8(1–2), 79–95.
58.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Creative Learning.
59.
RindermannH.BeckerD.CoyleT. R. (2016). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Causes of international differences in cognitive ability tests. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399
60.
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
61.
RindermannH.BeckerD.CoyleT. R. (2020). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media. Intelligence, 78, 101406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
62.
RitchieS. (2015). Intelligence: All that matters. John Murray Learning.
63.
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
64.
RosenthalR. (1990). Replication in behavioral research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 1–30.
65.
RuzgisP. M.GrigorenkoE. L. (1994). Cultural meaning systems, intelligence and personality. In SternbergR. J.RuzgisP. (Eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 248–270). Cambridge University Press.
66.
SakU. (2011). Prevalence of misconceptions, dogmas, and popular views about giftedness and intelligence: A case from Turkey. High Ability Studies, 22(2), 179–197.
67.
SchneiderW. J.McGrewK. S. (2018). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In FlanaganD. P.McDonoughE. M. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues. (pp. 73–163). The Guilford Press.
68.
SekaranU. (1992). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
69.
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
70.
SnydermanM.RothmanS. (1988). The IQ controversy: The media and public policy. Transaction Books.
71.
SpearmanC. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107
72.
SternbergR. J. (1993). The concept of “giftedness”: A pentagonal implicit theory. In BockG. R.AckrillK. (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 5–21). Wiley.
73.
SternbergR. J. (1995). A triarchic approach to giftedness. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
74.
SternbergR. J. (1996). Myths, countermyths, and truths about intelligence. Educational Researcher, 25, 11–16.
75.
SternbergR. J. (2000). The concept of intelligence. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press.
76.
SternbergR. J.ConwayB.KetronJ. L.BernsteinB. (1981). People's conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 37–55.
77.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ.E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge University Press.
78.
SullivanG. MFeinnR. (2012). Using effect size-or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
79.
TermanL. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. I. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (2nd ed.). Stanford University Press.
80.
The Turkish Council of Higher Education (2022). Higher Education information management system. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
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
85.
WarneR. T. (2016). 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
86.
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
87.
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
88.
WarneR. T.BurtonJ. Z. (2020). Beliefs about human intelligence in a sample of teachers and nonteachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(2), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220912010
89.
WinnerE. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. Basic Books.
90.
ZaboskiB. A.KranzlerJ. 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.
