Mainstream Science On Intelligence An Editorial With 52 Signatories History And Bibliography

Skip to main content

Full text of "Race And IQ What Mainstream Science Says"

See other formats


EDITORIAL Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography Linda S. Gottfredson University of Delaware The following statement was first published in the Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994. Mainstream Science on Intelligence Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate cur- rent scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are ac- tually firmly supported. This statement outlines conclusions re- garded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, ori- gins, and practical consequences of individu- al and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The follow- ing conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence. The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence 1 . Intelligence is a very general mental ca- pability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow aca- demic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings — "catch- ing on," "making sense" of things, or "figur- ing out" what to do. 2. Intelligence, so defined, can be mea- sured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in techni- cal terms, reliable and valid) of all psycho- logical tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individu- als, nor are they intended to. 3. While there are different types of intel- ligence tests, they all measure the same intel- ligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vo- cabulary). Other do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down). 4. The spread of people along the IQ con- tinuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Ameri- cans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal copyright 1994, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. INTELLIGENCE 24(1) 13-23 Copyright © 1997 Ablex Publishing Corporation ISSN: 0160-2896 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved 13 14 GOTTFREDSON the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation). 5. Intelligence tests are not culturally bi- ased against American blacks or other na- tive-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accu- rately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language. 6. The brain processes underlying intel- ligence are still little understood. Current re- search looks, for example, at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain. Group Differences 7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites. 8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered. Practical Importance 9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occu- pational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abiding- ness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance. 10. A high IQ is an advantage in life be- cause virtually all activities require some rea- soning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many ex- ceptions, but the odds for success in our soci- ety greatly favor individuals with higher IQs. 1 1 . The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or multifaceted). For exam- ple, a high IQ is generally necessary to per- form well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management); it is a con- siderable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that re- quire only routine decision making or simple problem solving (unskilled work). 12. Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intel- ligence is often the most important. When individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or spe- cial education), other influences on perfor- mance loom larger in comparison. 13. Certain personality traits, special tal- ents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experi- ence, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or "transferability" across tasks and settings compared with general intel- ligence. Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as other "intelligences." Source and Stability of Within- Group Differences 14. Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a big- ger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Herita- bility is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to MAINSTREAM SCIENCE ON INTELLIGENCE 15 become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin. 15. Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both ge- netic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ be- cause they experience different environments within the same family. 16. That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the envi- ronment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter. 17. Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs perma- nently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate. 18. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenylketonuria), nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily re- mediable (consider injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to some extent. Source and Stability of Between- Group Differences 19. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years show that gaps in academic achieve- ment have narrowed a bit for some races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems too mixed to reflect a gen- eral shift in IQ levels themselves. 20. Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when young- sters leave high school as when they enter first grade. However, because bright young- sters learn faster than slow learners, these same IQ differences lead to growing dis- parities in amount learned as youngsters pro- gress from grades one to 12. As large nation- al surveys continue to show, black 17-year- olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds in reading, math, and sci- ence, with Hispanics in between. 21. The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appear to be ba- sically the same as those for why whites (or Asians or Hispanics) differ among them- selves. Both environment and genetic hered- ity are involved. 22. There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the rea- son why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environ- ment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. 23. Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families. 24. Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors — the white admixture is about 20%, on aver- age — and many self-designated whites, His- panics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on intelligence re- lies on self-classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social and biological distinc- tions among groups (no one claims otherwise). Implications for Social Policy 25. The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, be- cause they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means. 16 GOTTFREDSON The following professors-all experts in intelligence and allied fields-have signed this statement: Richard D. Arvey, University of Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School Minnesota of Professional Psychology at San Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Diego Minnesota Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina Nadine Lambert, University of at Chapel Hill California at Berkeley Raymond B. Cattell, University of John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Hawaii Austin David B. Cohen, University of Texas at David Lubinski, Iowa State University Austin David T. Lykken, University of Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota Minnesota Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Reserve Un. Coleraine Marvin Dunnette, University of Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota Minnesota R. Travis Osborne, University of Hans Eysenck, University of London Georgia Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh Technology Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason London University Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western University Reserve University David C. Rowe, University of Arizona Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western University Ontario Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Vincent Sarich, University of California Delaware at Berkeley Robert L. Greene, Case Western Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia Reserve University Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa Richard J. Haier, University of Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M California at Irvine University Garrett Hardin, University of California James C. Sharf, George Washington at Santa Barbara University Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa Herman Spitz, former director of Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at research E.R. Johnstone Training and Austin Research Center, Bordentown, N.J. f InvH d ffnmnhrpvc I Inivprsifv of Inlinn O Stnnlpv Johns Honkins Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University John E. Hunter, Michigan State Del Thiessen, University of Texas at University Austin Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Reserve University Ontario Robert M. Thorndike, Western James J. Jenkins, University of South Washington Un. Florida Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Arthur R. Jensen, University of Ontario California at Berkeley Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Alan S. Kaufman, University of Austin Alabama MAINSTREAM SCIENCE ON INTELLIGENCE 17 HISTORY Rarely do scientists join in making statements to the public about the state of their discipline. As a rule, they do not readily agree among themselves or speak in the public arena. There is, of course, no dearth of public pronouncements from scientific asso- ciations and committees. It is unusual, however, for a broad spectrum of unaffili- ated (and often unacquainted) scientists to issue a public statement (see Page, 1972, for an example concerning human heredity). It is unprecedented that one should coalesce as quickly as did the "Mainstream" statement. A fuller under- standing of this event is provided by recounting its origins. The controversy over The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) was at its height in the fall of 1994. Many critics attacked the book for supposedly relying on outdated, pseudoscientific notions of intelligence. In criticizing the book, many critics promoted false and highly misleading views about the scientific study of intelligence. Public miseducation on the topic is hardly new (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988), but never before had it been so angry and extreme. I therefore approached the editorial features editor, David Brooks, at the Wall Street Journal to see if he would be interested in my writing an essay on the rising crescendo of misinformation on intelligence. He was not. He said he would, however, consider a short statement signed by 10 to 15 experts on what knowl- edge they do, in fact, consider to be mainstream in the study of intelligence. Timeliness required that any statement be submitted within 2 weeks. Invitations In the next few days, I drafted a statement that addressed the most common claims and misconceptions in the public media, whether in book reviews, opinion pieces, letters to the editor, or in TV and radio commentary. I wanted to fashion a primer of sorts by outlining briefly the most basic, well-accepted conclusions in the field. The draft was faxed to half a dozen leaders in the field (including the editor of the journal Intelligence), with a request that they review its accuracy and suggest revisions. I also solicited comments on the draft's comprehensibility from several nonexperts. In the meantime, I compiled a list of experts who could be invited to sign the statement. The aim was to gather a large group of highly knowledgeable re- searchers who represented a wide spectrum of disciplines and perspectives in the scientific study of intelligence. Names were obtained from four sources: (1) lists of individuals elected as fellows (for their distinguished contributions to psychol- ogy) by relevant divisions of the American Psychological Association such as educational psychology; school psychology; industrial and organizational psy- chology; and evaluation, measurement, and statistics; (2) lists of editorial board members of Intelligence; (3) tables of contents of books and journals devoted to 18 GOTTFREDSON the science of intelligence; and (4) suggestions from other people more knowl- edgeable than I am about some of the subdisciplines in the study of intelligence. The final list ranged from individuals I was sure would sign to those I was sure would not (I was sometimes wrong on both counts). I invited only academics, because nonacademic researchers are often constrained in the public statements their employers allow them to make. The experts represented a variety of disci- plines, including anthropology, behavior genetics, mental retardation, neuropsy- chology, sociology, and various specialties in psychology such as psychometrics, child development, educational psychology, and personnel selection. Early the next week, my assistant and I began faxing the statement to individu- als for whom we could obtain fax numbers. My one-page letter recounted the Wall Street Journal editor's suggestion for such a statement and invited their signa- tures. Recipients were advised that the deadline for my submitting the signed statement to the Journal was that Friday at 5:00 p.m. and that the statement would also be published as a signed editorial in Intelligence. Invitees were given no opportunity to revise the statement. Nor was anyone told (and only one person asked) who else had been invited or who had already signed. The letter of invitation asked recipients to return an accompanying signature form, regardless of whether they chose to sign it, so that I could confirm that the invitation had been received. We attempted to telephone all individuals from whom I did not receive a response within 24 to 48 hr. No inferences can be drawn about who declined to sign the statement, because many worthy scholars were either inadvertently omitted from the list or were unavailable the week I attempted to contact them. Responses A total of 131 invitations was issued, and 100 responses were obtained by the deadline. The signature form asked respondents to check either "yes" or "no," and if "no," to check one of three options explaining why they declined to sign: "I don't agree that the statement represents the mainstream," "I don't know enough to say for sure," and "other reason." Many nonsigners wrote comments or letters explain- ing their decision. Those comments will be discussed here. No comments were solicited from signers, but about two thirds either telephoned or wrote brief com- ments; these were usually praise, appreciation, or rewordings they would have preferred. Table 1 shows that, of the 100 individuals who responded, 48 declined to sign — 7 because they thought the statement did not represent the mainstream, 1 1 because they did not know whether it did, and 30 for other reasons. The bottom panel of Table 1 categorizes the nonsigners (excluding the 1 1 individuals who "do not know enough") according to the major reason each gave for not signing the statement. It is clear that declining to sign the statement did not necessarily mean disagreement with it. MAINSTREAM SCIENCE ON INTELLIGENCE 19 TABLE 1 Responses to Invitation to Sign "Mainstream" Statement Responses From the Experts Successfully Contacted (N = 100) Signed the statement 52 Decided not to sign the statement Statement does not represent the mainstream 7 Do not know enough to say 11 Other reasons 30 (Not located before deadline) (31) Reason for Not Signing the Statement u\ = 37)" Disagreed with 1 or 2 specific items 3 Disagreed with 3-5 specific items 2" Disagreed with statement's conception of intelligence 4 C Disagreed in general or vague way 2 Did not dispute content of statement, but disagreed 6 with its mode of presentation Agreed with statement, but feared that signing it 4 would jeopardize their position or project Mostly agreed with statement, but uncomfortable be- 4" ing associated with it or potential signers Did not want to sign "at this time" 2 Gave no explanation 10 "Excludes the 1 1 individuals who "do not know enough." b Two individuals marked "does not represent mainstream." c Three individuals marked "does not represent mainstream. Of the 27 who gave a reason, 1 1 explicitly disagreed with the content of the statement (or that its claims are "mainstream"). In three cases the individuals disagreed with only 1 or 2 of the 25 items. Two disagreed with 3 to 5 items, another 4 disputed the concept of general intelligence itself ("it is not a useful concept"), and 2 expressed nonspecific disagreement ("I agree with part but not all," "much ... is oversimplified, does not adequately represent what is known, and incorrect"). Fourteen individuals declined to sign the statement despite seeming to agree, sometimes strongly, that its content is "mainstream." Six of them disagreed with the way the statement was written (submitting that it did not mention enough complexities and qualifications) or how it was published (as a group statement) or where (a newspaper, nonscientific, or "conservative" outlet). Four nonsigners were specific about the possible political repercussions to them of signing it (such as loss of funding or other support). Another four expressed discomfort with the possibility of being caught up in controversy ("getting in a no-win fight") or seeming to associate with certain unnamed individuals ("about whom I have seri- ous reservations"). Two other individuals, by stating that they "did not want to 20 GOTTFREDSON sign at this time," also seemed to signal that they agreed with the statement but thought it prudent not to endorse it. Conclusions "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" is a collective statement that was first is- sued in order to inject some scientific rigor into an increasingly vitriolic and wrongheaded controversy concerning intelligence. That it garnered such immedi- ate support from so many highly regarded scholars testifies to their confidence both that it represents the mainstream and that their joint testimony to that effect was needed in the public realm. No individual or group has systematically rebutted the statement. Some people might construe the 24-page "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (Neisser et al., 1996) to be an alternative. However, that report was the result of 6 months' work by an 11 -member task force created by the American Psychological Asso- ciation's Board of Scientific Affairs. (Three of the task force members were also signers of the "Mainstream" statement.) That report differs in purpose, emphasis, and degree of equivocation, but its conclusions only reinforce the claim that the contents of the "Mainstream" statement are squarely within the mainstream. It too concludes, for example, that differences in intelligence exist, can be measured fairly, are partly genetic (within races), and influence life outcomes. It is obviously not the case that there is no disagreement about these important issues or that scientific truth is a matter of majority rule. A significant minority of the experts who were contacted disagreed in part or in whole with the statement, and many of the signers would have written the statement somewhat differently. Rather, the lesson here is that what have often been caricatured in the public press as discredited, fringe ideas actually represent the solid scientific center in the serious study of intelligence. As Snyderman and Rothman's (1988) survey of IQ experts and journalists revealed, the media, among others, have been turning the truth on its head. Many of the conclusions outlined in "Mainstream" are ones that many scholars have reached only recently and reluctantly (Gottfredson, 1996). The mainstream shifted slowly but steadily in recent decades as accumulating research evidence changed our understanding of the nature, measurement, origins, and consequence of differences of intelligence. The press and public have yet to catch up to the new mainstream. Social and political pressure, both internal and external to the field of intel- ligence, continues to make scholars reluctant to share their conclusions freely. Over one third of the individuals who declined to sign the "Mainstream" state- ment expressed reasons that signal such reluctance. It is also understandable that some respondents wanted the statement's 25 items to be stated with a fuller account of their complexity. It is difficult for knowledge- able and precise scientists to make simple summary statements that do not do full MAINSTREAM SCIENCE ON INTELLIGENCE 21 justice to the topics they know so well, especially ones subject to controversy. Indeed, many books have been written about most of the individual items in the "Mainstream" statement. As a practical matter, people are more likely to reach consensus on general principles than highly particular ones. More importantly, it is sometimes wiser to focus on the forest than the trees — certainly when public perceptions are 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Furthermore, only a strong collective voice is likely to be heard when popular opinion has been aroused against particular ideas, as had been the case with intel- ligence for some years. For many of us who signed the "Mainstream" statement, this joint effort was the only corrective letter of the many we individually wrote to the media that was ever published. Scientists should not have to issue public statements about what is most basic in their fields. However, responsibility to science and society sometimes demands that they do so. What effects such statements have is uncertain — except that pun- dits can no longer assert their falsehoods without fear of contradiction. REFERENCES Gottfredson, L.S. (1996). What do we know about intelligence? American Scholar, Winter, 15-30. Herrnstein, R.J. , & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 5/, 77-101. Page, E.B. (1972). Behavior and heredity. American Psychologist, 27, 660-661. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert opinion of intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42, 137-144. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ controversy, the media and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. BIBLIOGRAPHY The following bibliography is provided as an entry point into the vast literature on intelligence. It samples the major books since 1980 (with the addition of one 1975 classic). Consulting any subset of entries will quickly reveal many other important works. Some of the books listed here examine issues that are now considered settled for the most part (e.g., test bias), and others represent newer, quickly evolving fields of inquiry (e.g., biological bases of intelligence). Date of publication is therefore a fallible guide to currency. Some of the volumes synthesize work on a single major question (e.g. , Jensen, 1980; Spitz, 1986); others survey the variety of expert opinion on an issue (e.g., Detterman and Sternberg, 1982); yet others represent separate threads of research on a fast-breaking topic (e.g., Vernon, 1993). All, however, give a sense of the 22 GOTTFREDSON ways in which researchers have tried to puzzle out the meaning and measurement of intelligence. By illustrating the kind and amount of evidence on particular ques- tions, as well as debates over how compelling we should consider that evidence, these volumes help to illustrate not only what we know but also how we know it. The bibliography provides general documentation for the "Mainstream" state- ment. It was culled from documentation for each of the statement's 25 specific items, which, in turn, had been obtained by asking signers of the "Mainstream" statement to provide the best one or two citations for each item. That list of more than 150 book and journal citations ("Selected Documentation for 25 Items in 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence' ") is available from the author. Short Books for General Audience Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1990). Separate lives: Why siblings are so different. New York: Basic Books. Jensen, A.R. (1981). Straight talk about mental tests. New York: Free Press. Seligman, D. (1992). A question of intelligence: The IQ debate in America. New York: Citadel Press. Textbooks Anastasi, A. (1996). Psychological testing (7th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press. Cronbach, L.J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Kaufman, A.S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Plomin, R., DeFries, J.C., McClearn, G. E., & Rutter, M. (1997). Behavioral genetics (3rd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman. More Technical or Specialized Volumes Braden, J. P. (1994). Deafness, deprivation, and IQ. New York: Plenum. Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Detterman, D.K. (Ed.). (1994). Current topics in human intelligence: Vol. 4. Theories of intel- ligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Detterman, D.K. (Ed.). (1996). Current topics in human intelligence: Vol. 5. The environment. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Detterman, D.K., & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.). (1982). How and how much can intelligence be in- creased. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Eysenck, H.J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gottfredson, L.S. (Ed.). (1986). The g factor in employment (Special issue]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(3). Hetherington, E.M., Reiss, D., & Plomin, R. (Eds.). (1994). Separate social worlds of siblings: The impact of nonshared environment on development. Hillsdale, HJ: Erlbaum. Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. Locurto, C. (1991). Sense and nonsense about IQ: The case for uniqueness. New York: Praeger. Loehlin, J.C., Lindzey, G., & Spuhler, J.N. (1975). Race differences in intelligence. San Francisco: Freeman. MAINSTREAM SCIENCE ON INTELLIGENCE 23 Modgil, S., & Modgil, C. (Eds.)- (1987). Arthur Jensen: Consensus and controversy. New York: Falmer Press. Plomin, R. (Ed.). (1994). Genetics and experience: The interplay between nature and nurture. Beverly Hills: Sage. Plomin, R., & McClearn, G.E. (Eds.). (1993). Nature, nurture, and psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Reynolds, C.R., & Brown, R.T. (Eds.). (1984). Perspectives on bias in mental testing. New York: Plenum. Rowe, D.C. (1994). The limits of family influence: Genes, experience, and behavior. New York: Guilford Press. Salkofske, D.H., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (1995). International handbook of personality and intel- ligence. New York: Plenum. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ controversy, the media and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Spitz, H.H. (1986). The raising of intelligence: A selected history of attempts to raise retarded intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.). (1988). Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E. (Eds.). (19%). Intelligence: Heredity and environment. New York: Cambridge University Press. Vernon, P.A. (Ed.). (1993). Biological approaches to the study of human intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wigdor, A.K., & Gamer, W.R. (Eds.). (1982). Ability testing: Uses, consequences, and controver- sies. Part I: Report of the Committee. Part U: Documentation section. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Wolman, B.B. (Ed.). (1985). Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurements, and applications . New York: Wiley.

Linda S. Gottfredson


of

(302) 831-1650
gottfred@udel.edu


|| Interests || Education || Experience || || Presentations || Video Interviews || Service ||
||Newspaper Essays || Biography || Course Syllabi || Help for Career Theory Students ||

Interests

  • Chronic disease self-management
  • Intelligence, health and everyday life
  • Intelligence and social inequality
  • Employment testing and job aptitude demands
  • Affirmative action and multicultural diversity
  • Career development and vocational counseling

Education and Honors

  • Lifetime Achievement Award, International Society for Intelligence Research, Melbourne, Australia, December 12, 2013.
  • Hans J. Eysenck Lecture, International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, London, July 26, 2011.
  • Prometheus Award (for "courageous public defense of the rights of students and faculty at the University of Delaware"), Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 2009.
  • Mensa Award for Excellence in Research, 2008-2009.
  • George A Miller Award (for outstanding journal article across specialty areas), Society for General Psychology (Division 1), American Psychological Association, 2008.
  • Distinguished Faculty Award, School of Education, University of Delaware, 2007.
  • Mensa Press Award, 2005.
  • Mensa Award for Excellence in Research, 2005.
  • Faculty Senate Commendation for Extraordinary Leadership and Service, , awarded .
  • Mensa Research Foundation Award for Excellence in Research, 1999-2000.
  • Fellow, Association for Psychological Science, elected 1998.
  • Johns Hopkins University Society of Scholars, elected 1995.
  • Fellow, American Psychological Association, elected 1994.
  • Fellow, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, elected 1994.
  • Ph.D. (Sociology), The , 1977.
  • B.A. (Psychology), at , 1969. (Phi Beta Kappa).

Table of Contents

Professional Experience

  • 2015-Present Professor Emeritus, University of
  • 2000-2015 Affiliated Faculty, Honors Program,
  • 1990-2015 Professor, , .
  • 1987-1990 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Studies, , .
  • 1986-1987 Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Educational Studies, , .
  • 1986 Principal Research Scientist, Center for Social Organization of Schools, The .
  • 1985-1986 Research Associate (part-time), Department of Counseling and Personnel Services, , , .
  • 1983-1986 Associate Professor (adjunct), Department of Sociology, The Johns Hopkins University.
  • 1980-1986 Research Scientist, Center for Social Organization of Schools, The .
  • 1977-1983 Assistant Professor (adjunct), Department of Sociology, The Johns Hopkins University.
  • 1976-1980 Associate Research Scientist, Center for Social Organization of Schools, The .
  • 1972-1973 Research Assistant, Department of Behavioral Sciences, and Public Health, The .
  • 1969-1972 Peace Corps Volunteer in Family Planning and Health Statistics, Penang State Health Office, Georgetown, Malaysia.
  • 1968-1969 Research Assistant, Human Relations Commission, .

Table of Contents

Professional Publications

1975-1979 || 1980-1984 || 1985-1989 || 1990-1994 || 1995-1999 || 2000-2004 || 2005-2009 || 2010-2014 || 2015-2019 ||

  • 2015-2019
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2016). Hans Eysenck's theory of intelligence, and what it reveals about him,Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 116-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.036
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2016). A g theorist on why Kovacs and Conway's process overlap theory amplifies, not opposes, g theory.Psychological Inquiry, 27(3), 210-217, DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2016.1203232.
  • 2010-2014
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2013). Resolute ignorance on race and Rushton,Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 218-223.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2011). Intelligence and social inequality: Why the biological link? Pp. 538-575 in T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furhnam, & S. von Stumm (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences. Wiley-Blackwell.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2011, July 2). Intelligence: Instant Expert 13,New Scientist, 211(2819), pp. i-viii (a pullout).
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2010). Lessons in academic freedom as lived experience.Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 272-280.
  • 2005-2009
    • Pierce, A., Miller, G, Arden, R., & Gottfredson, L. S. (2009). Why is intelligence correlated with semen quality? Biochemical pathways common to sperm and neuron function, and their vulnerability to pleiotropic mutations,Communicative & Integrative Biology, 2(5), 385-387.
    • Arden, R., Gottfredson, L. S., & Miller, G. (2009). Does a fitness factor contribute to the association between intelligence and health outcomes? Evidence from medical abnormality counts among 3,654 US veterans. Intelligence, 37(6), 581-591.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Saklofske, D. H. (2009). Intelligence: Foundations and issues in assessment. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 183-195.
    • Arden, R., Gottfredson, L. S., Miller, G., & Pierce, A. (2009). Intelligence and semen quality are positively correlated.Intelligence, 37, 277-282.
      • Won a 2008-2009 Mensa Excellence in Research Award
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2009). Logical fallacies used to dismiss the evidence on intelligence testing.  In R. Phelps (Ed.),Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing (pp. 11-65).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    • Phelps, P. S., & Gottfredson, L. S. (2009). Summary and discussion. In R. Phelps (Ed.),Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing (pp. 247-255).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2008). Of what value is intelligence?  In A. Prifitera, D. Saklofske, L. G. Weiss (Eds.),WISC-IV applications for clinical assessment and intervention(2nd ed.)(pp. 545-563). Amsterdam: Elsevier.   
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2008). The calculus of small but consistent effects. The Edge Annual Question — Edge, January 1.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Shattering logic to explain the Flynn Effect.Cato Unbound, November 8.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Applying double standards to "divisive" ideas.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(2), 216-220.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Innovation, fatal accidents, and the evolution of general intelligence. In M. J. Roberts (Ed.), Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 387-425) .: Psychology Press.
    • Batty, G. D., Deary, J., & Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Pre-morbid (early life) IQ and later mortality risk: Systematic review.Annals of Epidemiology. epub available .
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Circumscription and compromise. In J. H. Greenhaus (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Career Development. : Sage.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). : ArtMed Publishers.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Unmasking the egalitarian fiction.Duke Gifted Letter, 6(3), 10.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2005, October 31). Thinking more deeply about health disparities. A rapid response comment on D. Adkins & E. M. Moy, Left behind: the legacy of hurricane Katrina (editorial), British Medical Journal, 2005, 331: 916-918.
    • Deary, I. J., Batty, D., & Gottfredson, L. S. (2005, July 29). Human hierarchies, health, and IQ (letter). Science, 309, 703-703.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies. Pages 517-554 in C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology. New York: Wiley.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 311-319.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2005, May 10). Linda Gottfredson responds to Simon Baron-Cohen.Edge: The Reality Club, 160.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Suppressing intelligence research: Hurting those we intend to help. In R. H. Wright & N. A. Cummings (Eds.), Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to harm (pp. 155-186). New York: Taylor and Francis.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Using Gottfredson's theory of circumscription and compromise in career guidance and counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71-100). New York: Wiley.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Three entries ("Construct validity," "Intelligence testing," and "Norms,") in S. Cartwright (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of management: Human resource management (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. (Pages 68-69, 187-189, 257-258).
  • 2000-2004
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Schools and the g factor. The Wilson Quarterly, Summer, 35-45.
      • Won the 2005 Mensa Press Award.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Life, death, and intelligence.Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology [online], 4, (1), 23-46. www.iacep.coged.org
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Realities in desegregating gifted education. In D. Booth & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 139-155). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Deary, I. J. (2004). Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 1-4.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Intelligence: Is it the epidemiologists' elusive "fundamental cause" of social class inequalities in health? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 174-199.
      • Reprinted in Mensa Research Journal, 38 (2), 76-106, Summer 2007.
      • Won the George A. Miller Award, Society of General Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2008.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). g, jobs, and life. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 293-342). New York: Pergamon.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). On Sternberg's "Reply to Gottfredson."Intelligence, 31(4), 415-424.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence.Intelligence, 31(4), 343-397.
      • Reprinted in Mensa Research Journal, 38 (2), 34-68, 107, Summer 2007.
      • Won a 2005 Mensa Excellence in Research Award.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment.Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 115-135.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). "Environments" are genetic too. Review of Environmental effects on cognitive abilities, by R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.). Contemporary Psychology, 48(1), 71-74.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). Practical intelligence. Pages 740-745 in R. Fernandez-Ballesteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment. London: Sage.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. Pages 24-40 in N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Assess and assist individuals, not sexes.Issues in Education, 8(1), 39-47.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Gottfredson's theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-creation. Pages 85-148 in D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery.Human Performance, 15(1/2), 25-46.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2002).g: Highly general and highly practical. Pages 331-380 in R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2001). Intelligence and the American ambivalence toward talent. Pages 41-58 in N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent development IV: Proceedings from The 1998 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2001). Review of Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life by R. J. Sternberg et al. Intelligence, 29, 363-365.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2000). Intelligence. Pages 1359-1386 in E. F. Borgatta & R. J. V. Montgomery (eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology, Vol. 2 (2nd ed.) . New York: Macmillan Reference.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2000). Skills gaps, not tests, make racial proportionality impossible. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 129-143.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2000). Pretending that intelligence doesn't matter.Cerebrum, 2(3), 75-96.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (2000). Equal potential: A collective fraud. Society, 37(5), 19-28.
  • 1995-1999
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Richards, J. M., Jr. (1999). The meaning and measurement of environments in Holland's theory.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 57-73
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1999). The nature and nurture of vocational interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling. Davies-Black Publishing.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1998). Jensen, Jensenism, and the sociology of intelligence. Intelligence, 26(3), 291-299.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1998, Winter). The general intelligence factor.Scientific American Presents, 9(4), 24-29.
      • Also published as Der Generalfaktor der Intelligenz,Spektrum der Wissenschaft. Spezial: Intelligenz (A publication of Scientific American), 1/2000, 24-30.
      • Reprinted in 12th edition of Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial psychological issues. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002, pages 159-169.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Lapan, R. T. (1997). Assessing gender-based circumscription of occupational aspirations.Journal of Career Assessment, 5(4), 419-441.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Review of Inequality by design: Cracking the Bell Curve myth, by C. S. Fischer, M. Hout, M. S. Jankowski, S. R. Lucas, A. Swidler, & K. Voss. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 741-746.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (Ed.) (1997). Intelligence and social policy. Intelligence, 24(1). (Special issue)
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.
      • Received a 1999-2000 Mensa Research Foundation Award for Excellence in Research.
      • Reprinted in G. J. Boyle & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), (2003), Psychology of Individual Differences. Vol. 1: Individual Differences. London: Sage.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13-23.
      • Reprinted in G. J. Boyle & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), (2003), Psychology of Individual Differences. Vol. 1: Individual Differences. London: Sage.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Four entries ("Construct validity," "GATB", "Intelligence testing," and "Norms,") in L. H. Peters, C. R. Greer, & S. A. Youngblood (Eds.), Blackwell dictionary of human resource management. Oxford: Blackwell. (Pages 57-58, 126, 169-170, and 234.)
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Multiculturalism in the workplace. The Psychologist-Manager, 1, 23-34.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Review of Prescription for failure: Race relations in the age of social science, by B. M. Roth. Political Psychology, 18, 209-215.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). Racially gerrymandering the content of police tests to satisfy the U.S. Justice Department: A case study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(3/4), 418-446.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). Confronting the new particularism in academe. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 319-325.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). The new challenge to academic freedom. Journal of Homelessness and Social Distress, 5, 205-212.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). Review of Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective, by J. P. Rushton. Politics and the Life Sciences, 15, 141-143.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). Gottfredson's theory of circumscription and compromise. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks, (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd ed.), pp. 179-232. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). Reply to critiques of "What do we know about intelligence?"The American Scholar, Spring, 320-320.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1996). What do we know about intelligence?The American Scholar, Winter, 15-30.
      • Reprinted in Network News & Views, January/February 1996, 29-44.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1995). Review of Dictatorship of virtue: Multiculturalism and the battle for America's future, by R. Bernstein. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 667-671.
  • 1990-1994
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1994). From the ashes of affirmative action.The World and I, November, 365-377.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1994). The science and politics of race-norming. American Psychologist, 49(11), 955-963.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1994). Scientific hoax - reply.Society, 32(1), 5-6.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1994). Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud. Society, 31(3), 53-59.
      • Reprinted in N. J. Pallone & J. J. Hennessey (eds.), (1995), Fraud and fallible judgment: Varieties of deception in the social and behavioral sciences, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 95-106.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1993). Truth in the balance? A comment on Estes.Psychological Science, 4(4), 271-271.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & J. H. Blits. (1992). Legislated lawlessness on civil rights.Delaware Lawyer, 10 (2), 20-23.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1992). Dilemmas in developing diversity programs. In S. E. Jackson (Ed.), Diversity in the workplace: Human resources initiatives. New York: Guilford.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1991). The evaluation of alternative measures of job performance. In A. K. Wigdor & B. F. Green, Jr. (Eds.), Performance assessment for the workplace. Volume II: Technical issues. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1990). Fairness or bias in job testing? A commentary in Issues in Science and Technology, 7 (1), 27-28.
    • Blits, J. H., & Gottfredson, L. S. (1990). Equality or lasting inequality?Society, 27 (3), 4-11.
    • Blits, J. H., & Gottfredson, L. S. (1990). Employment testing and job performance.The Public Interest, Winter, No. 98, 18-25.
  • 1985-1989
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Sharf, J. C. (Eds.) (Special Issue) (1988). Fairness in employment testing.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33 (3).
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1988). Reconsidering fairness: A matter of social and ethical priorities.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33 (3), 293-319.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1988). Do we need sex-specific occupational prestige scales? (Review of Jobs and gender: A study of occupational prestige, by Christine Bose). Contemporary Psychology, 33 (4), 315.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1987). The practical significance of black-white differences in intelligence.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10 (3), 510-512.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (Ed.) (1986). The g factor in employment.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29 (3). (Special Issue)
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Crouse, J. (1986). The validity versus utility of mental tests: Example of the SAT.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 363-378.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1986). Societal consequences of the g factor in employment.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 379-410.
      • Reprinted in Educational Excellence Network, 6 (9), October, 1987.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1986). Occupational aptitude patterns map: Development and implications for a theory of job aptitude requirements (Monograph). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 254-291.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1986). Special groups and the beneficial use of vocational interest inventories. In W. B. Walsh & S. Osipow (Eds.), Advances in Vocational Psychology, Vol. 1: The Assessment of Interests (pp. 127-198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Finucci, J. M., Gottfredson, L. S., & Childs, B. (1985). A follow-up study of dyslexic boys.Annals of Dyslexia, 35, 117-136.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1985). Education as a valid but fallible signal of worker quality: Reorienting an old debate about the functional basis of the occupational hierarchy. In A. C. Kerchoff (Eds.) Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, Vol. 5 (pp. 119-165). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1985). The role of self-concept in vocational theory.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32 (1), 159-162.
  • 1980-1984
    • Gottfredson, L. S., Finucci, J. M., & Childs, B. (1984). Explaining the adult careers of dyslexic boys: Variations in critical skills for high-level jobs.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 355-373.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1983). Creating and criticizing theory.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 203-212.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1982). The sex fairness of unnormed interest inventories.Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 31 (2), 128-132.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1982). Vocational research priorities.The Counseling Psychologist, 10 (2), 69-84.
      • Reprinted under the title "An outsider's view of research priorities" in The Coming Decade in Counseling Psychology, edited by J. M. Whiteley, N. Kagan, L. W. Harmon, F. Tanney, & B. R. Fretz. American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1984.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations.Journal of Counseling Psychology (Monograph), 28 (6), 545-579.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Brown, V. C. (1981). Occupational differentiation among white men in the first decade after high school.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 19, 251-289.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., Simonsick, E., & Voorstad, F. (1981). Occupational statistics and vocational analysis.1980 Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, 98-107.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Becker, H. J.. (1981). A challenge to vocational psychology: How important are aspirations in determining male career development?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 121-137.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & White, P. E. (1981). Interorganizational agreements. In P. C. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 1: Adapting Organizations to their Environments (pp. 471-486). New York: Oxford.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1980). Construct validity of Holland's occupational typology in terms of prestige, census, Department of Labor, and other classification systems.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65 (6), 697-714.
  • 1975-1979
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1979). Aspiration-job match: Age trends in a large, nationally representative sample of young white men.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26 (4), 319-328.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1978). Providing Black youth more access to enterprising work.Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 27 (2), 114-123.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1978). An analytical description of employment according to race, prestige, and Holland type of work.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 210-221.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (1978). Race and sex differences in occupational aspirations: Their development and consequences for occupational segregation. Report No. 254. : Center for Social Organization of Schools, The .
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Brown, V. C. (1978). Holland codes for the 1960 and 1970 censuses: Detailed occupational titles.JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 22. (Ms. No. 1660).
    • White, P. E., Richardson, A., Bright, M., Gottfredson, L., McQueen, D., Sanders, B., & Vlasak, G. (1976). A Survey of Graduates of American Schools of Public Health. Washington, D.C.: Association of Schools of Public Health.
    • Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, L. S. (1975). Read our reports and examine that data.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 7, 253-259.
    • Gottfredson, G. D., Holland, J. L., & Gottfredson, L. S. (1975). The relation of vocational aspirations and assessments to employment reality.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 7, 135-148.

Table of Contents

Presentations at Professional Meetings and in Lecture Series

|| 1977-1979 || 1980-1984 || 1985-1989 || 1990-1994 || 1995-1999 || 2000-2004 || 2005-2009 || 2010-2014 || 2015-2019 ||

  • 2015-2019
    • Stroh, K., & Gottfredson, L. S. DSME/S for older adults with cognitive decline. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Diabetes Educators, San Diego, August 12, 2016.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Stroh, K. How to Select or Create Materials Your Patients Will Actually Understand. Pre-Conference Workshop conducted at the annual meeting of the American Association of Diabetes Educators, San Diego, August 11, 2016.
    • Stroh, K., & Gottfredson, L. S. The cognitive and functional burdens of diabetes for older adults. Presented at Fifth Annual Pennsylvania State Diabetes Conference, Harrisburg, PA, April 22, 2016.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Stroh, K. DSME for preventable hypoglycemia. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Diabetes Educators, New Orleans, August 5, 2015.
  • 2010-2014
    • Stroh, K., & Gottfredson, L. S. DSME for older adults: Relative utility of selected assessment tools. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Diabetes Educators, Orlando, FL, August 7, 2014.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Empirical treasure: Lost and found. Address given at receipt of Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Society for Intelligence Research at its annual conference, Melbourne, Australia, December 12, 2013.
    • Stroh, K., & Gottfredson, L. S. The psychometrics of diabetes self-management error among aging patients. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Diabetes Educators, Philadelphia, August 8, 2013.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Evolutionary perspective on raising intelligence. Presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Barcelona, Spain, July 22, 2013.
    • Stroh, K., & Gottfredson, L. S. Challenges of diabetes self-management in the elderly with age-related cognitive decline. A webinar for continuing education credit, American Association of Diabetes Educators, May 8, 2013.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., & Stroh, K. Teaching diabetes self-management--in 4 hours (or less). Presented in the Spring 2013 Colloquium Series, College of Education and Human Development, University of Delaware, February 28, 2013.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Circumscription and Compromise Theory of Career Development. Presented at a Mafalda Symposium on Educational and Career Guidance: "PITSTOP Between School and Work." Kirchliche Padagogische Hochschule Graz, Graz, Austria, November 15, 2012.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. The Rising Complexity of Everyday Life. Presented to the Alumni Association of the School of Psychology, Karl Franzens University of Graz, Graz, Austria November 13, 2012.
    • Stroh, K., & Gottfredson, L. S. Beyond health literacy: Cognitive demands of diabetes self-management. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Diabetes Educators, Indianapolis, August 2, 2012.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., Stroh, K., & Sparling, E. Spearman and the cognitive ergonomics of health disparities. Presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Intelligence Research, Cyprus, December 8, 2011.
    • Gottfredson, L. S., Stroh, K., & Sparling, E. Identifying the special difficulties in diabetes self-management among individuals with cognitive disabilities. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association of University Centers for Disabilities (AUCD), Arlington, VA, October 6, 2011.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Why is g so deeply insinuated in social inequality? Presented at the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, London, July 26, 2011.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. The sociology of biological intelligence. Hans J. Eysenck Lecture, International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, London, July 26, 2011.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. (Symposium organizer).Challenges in reporting mainstream science on human variation in socially important traits: In memoriam of science writer Constance Holden. Symposium presented at the annual meeting at the International Society for Intelligence Research, Alexandria, VA, December 10, 2010.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Individuals differ widely in general intelligence: The cause--or the consequence--of socioeconomic inequality? What relevance to human capital? Invited presentation at "Human capital in Latin-American countries: The importance of psychological assessment," meeting of Psychological Assessment of Minas Gerais (EMAP), Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, September 22-25, 2010.
  • 2005-2009
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Use slopes to track the "fundamental cause" of group disparities in health. Presentation at the annual meeting of the International Society for Intelligence Research, Madrid, December 18, 2009.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Give intelligence its due, but put it in its place. Presentation at New Voices in Intelligence and Creativity Conference, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, November 3, 2009.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Social class disparities in health: A vexing puzzle with a surprising answer? Division 1 George A. Miller Award address, American Psychological Association, Toronto, August 7, 2009.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Intelligence as warp and woof of human affairs. Keynote address presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Evanston, IL, July 19, 2009.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Practical meaning of human cognitive differences. Presented in the symposium, "Cognitive Enhancement," The Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, June 28, 2009.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Four decisions in promoting cognitive enhancements. Presented in a workshop on cognitive enhancement, The Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, June 27, 2009.
    • Gottfredson, L. S. Lessons in academic freedom. Presented in a festschrift for Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., at the annual meeting of the Behavior Genetics Association, Minneapolis, MN, June 16, 2009.
    • Slides in Acrobat Reader
  • Gottfredson, L. S., & Stroh, M. K. Development of a low-literacy "Rx for Physical Activity" for a rural community health center. Paper presented at the Centers for Disease Control's 2009 Diabetes Translation Conference, Long Beach, CA, April 24, 2009.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. Literacy and task complexity in the self-management of diabetes. Presented in the symposium, "Lower literacy predicts poorer self-management of diabetes: Why, and what can practitioners do about it? Centers for Disease Control's 2009 Diabetes Translation Conference, Long Beach, CA, April 22, 2009.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. How intelligence research can guide interventions to reduce error rates in health self-management. Presented in the symposium “Causal models that integrate literacy, g, and health outcomes: A practical guide to more effective disease prevention and health promotion?” at the annual convention of the International Society for Intelligence Research, Decatur, GA, December 12, 2008.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. The fragility of maximal performance. Presented at the conference, “How can we improve our brains?” The Banbury Center, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, September 16, 2008.
  • Gottfredson, L. S., Arden, R., & Miller, G. Is SES a surrogate for intelligence in predicting health? Presented at the annual convention of the International Congress of Psychology, Berlin, July 24, 2008.
  • Arden, R., Gottfredson, L. S., & Miller, G. Intelligence and semen quality. Presented at the annual convention of the Behavior Genetics Association, Louisville, KY, June 26, 2008.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Psychometric properties of health and health self-care. Presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Intelligence Research, , December 13.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Flynn Effect 2: Political enthusiasm. Presented at the 2007 Schelling Symposium, What is Intelligence? University of Maryland, November 19, 2007.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Flynn Effect 1: Empirical puzzle. Presented at the 2007 Schelling Symposium, What is Intelligence? University of Maryland, November 19, 2007.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Intelligence in everyday life--Where and why it matters. Developmental Lunch Bunch Seminar, , , November 16.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Everyday life and health as an intelligence test—throughout evolution. Special Lecture, , , November 15
  • Gottfredson, L. S. Patient intelligence predicts health and adherence to treatment: New opportunities for improving and assessing clinical care. Presented at the National Board of Medical Examiners, Philadelphia, October 15, 2007.
    • Slides in Powerpoint
    • Slides in Acrobat Reader
  • Gottfredson, L. S. Chronic diseases as cognitively demanding careers for patients and their families: Diabetes, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and breast cancer. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Giessen, Germany, July 22-27, 2007.
Categories: 1

0 Replies to “Mainstream Science On Intelligence An Editorial With 52 Signatories History And Bibliography”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *