Download Example Critical Review Paper

Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
1
Shouldn’t There Be Some Movement in the Intelligence Movement?
Dwight Hennessy
York University
Excerpts from the Minor Area paper submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Program in Psychology
York University
For example purposes in PSY450 only. Any other use for academic or other
purposes is prohibited and a violation of copyright laws.
Shouldn’t There Be Some Movement in the Intelligence Movement ?
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
2
The intelligence movement, which began around the turn of the century, was based on a few
basic principles: that intelligence is inborn and unalterable, that it can be represented by a single
number, that it is a defining factor in overall personality characteristics, and that there are basic
group and/or racial differences (Fancher, 1985). In recent years the intelligence movement has reemerged in psychological and popular literature. However, since the word "movement" means to
progress or change, and the latest version of the intelligence movement does neither, it represents
more of an intelligence "stagnation". Despite saying nothing new, the popularity of the latest
intelligence concepts is based on the same political and social conscience that facilitated the original
ideas: if negative characteristics are biologically rather than socially determined, then the time,
effort, money, and responsibility for improvement is on deviant individuals rather than on society
itself. Within this framework, the present paper will follow the movement (or stagnation) and its
main criticisms which advocate more environmental influences in intelligence.
The Beginning--Eugenics
Galton (1869) proposed that the poor were inherently less intelligent than the well off and
that social positions were unchangeable. Low intelligence caused people to be lazy and
unmotivated which led to poverty and sickness. Galton felt that the number of poor would
eventually be so enormous that the fittest and superior breed of humans would disappear. Thus his
eugenic solution was to selectively breed those who possessed the best characteristics and prevent
those who were unfit from procreating (Buss, 1976). He believed that the root of intelligence was in
the brain and, since the brain controlled the body, intelligence could be measured through body
functions such as the senses and reaction times. He devised a complex series of tests specifically to
measure sensory acuity and reaction times in order to identify those who should procreate and those
who should not (Fancher, 1985). Unfortunately for him he could find no relationships between his
measures and actual success in life.
Not all were as impressed with eugenics as Galton. Mill firmly believed that intelligence
was more a product of good upbringing and quality education than heredity (Mill, 1971). The antieugenic explanation was that the environment was shared or passed on between generations. It was
becoming well known that the filthy, disease ridden conditions of the poor in England was a major
reason they accomplished little in life (Chase, 1980). The poor were more likely to developed eye
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
3
and ear problems and lacked the monetary or the medical resources to correct such problems.
Despite evidence that proper medical care, better diet, adequate sewage, and a good education could
improve the dilemma of the poor, eugenic ideas were better suited to the powerful and biological
determinism of intelligence was advocated (Chase, 1980).
The World War I Era
One of the earliest American advocates of the eugenic conception of intelligence was
Goddard, who traced the lineage of Martin Kalikak down through two different paths: from a child
born to his mistress (a simple bar maid) and from the children born to his Quaker wife (Goddard,
1912). The descendants of the bar maid were found to be unintelligent, deviant, criminal,
impoverished individuals and the descendants of the quaker wife to be intelligent, law abiding,
somewhat successful individuals. He concluded that intelligence must be inherited and
unchangeable. In this respect, the majority of social ills in America could be remedied simply by
preventing the unintelligent from reproducing. To further his point Goddard measured the
intelligence of new immigrants entering America on Ellis Island. He found that 87% of Russians,
83% of Jews, 80% of Hungarians, and 79% of Italians immigrants were feeble-minded or "morons"
(Goddard, 1917). Not only was intelligence biologically determined but there were clear national
and racial group differences.
The idea of inborn group differences in intelligence was advanced by the publication of the
Army Intelligence data following World War I. During the war, Yerkes, then the president of APA
and an advocate of Galton's biologically determined intelligence, gathered together a group of like
minded psychologists, including Goddard and Terman, to develop an intelligence test to be used by
the military (Kamin, 1974). Terman had recently become known for his American revision of the
Binet-Simon test, the Stanford-Binet, which included American items and age related standards
(Terman, 1920). Each score was converted to an Intelligence Quotient (Stern, 1914) which
provided a single number indicating a child's intelligence for his/her age. This fit well with the
growing idea that there was a single inborn general intelligence (called "g") that could be accurately
measured and represented as a single score (Spearman, 1904). They proclaimed to the military and
the media that recruits could be accurately ranked based on intelligence scores and could be placed
in the most appropriate jobs to help end the war early (Kevles, 1968).
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
4
Two Army Intelligence tests were constructed: the Alpha and Beta tests. The Alpha test was
designed for those recruits who could read, write, and understand English while the Beta test was
designed for those who could not (Yerkes, 1921). Both provided a single score indicating mental
age (i.e. intelligence). They were believed to measure natural inborn intelligence and not school
learning or cultural influences (Samelson, 1977), therefore, training those with low scores in certain
areas was a considered a waste of time and money. The most impressive aspect, and the intended
"selling point", at that time was that a great deal of time and money could be saved since large
numbers of recruits could be evaluated at once. This began the era of group testing in psychology.
According to the army test data, the average mental age of the American adult was
determined to be around 13 years (Yerkes, 1921). Immigrants from norther Europe were slightly
lower while those from southern and eastern Europe were below 12 years (the upper limit of the
"moron" classification). The least intelligent group was the American blacks with an average
mental age of 10 years. This was startling news since the average adult mental age had been
estimated, prior to the implementation of the tests, to be 16 years (Brigham, 1923). The suggested
solution was to prevent the black and inferior European blood from contaminating the Nordic
American breed. This data is believed to have contributed to the subsequent implementation of the
1924 Immigration Act which limited the number of immigrants from specific "low intelligence"
countries (Kamin, 1974).
There were some who doubted the validity and usefulness of the Army tests (Samelson,
1977). The use of a single number to represent intelligence was seen as too simple (McLeish,
1963). Advocates of biological determinism had greater faith in the concept of a single intelligence
than did its opponents. Thurstone demonstrated that by simply rotating the factor dimensions in a
factor analysis, multiple intelligences emerged (Gould, 1994). The validity of a concept that can be
changed simply by modifying its mathematical construction is highly suspect. The idea of multiple
intelligences is the position most accepted today.
Brigham (1930) later believed that comparisons between groups were not proper since
different racial groups had different life experiences, history, and education. The fact the tests were
developed based on "Nordic" culture, gave certain groups a distinct advantage. For example, on the
Alpha test one question required participants to know the Buick was made in Flint, while on the
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
5
Beta test one question required participants to know that a tennis court contained a net (Greene,
1941). Individuals not familiar with middle class American culture (including many blacks) would
have had a disadvantage since such questions were based on knowledge of culture rather than innate
"intelligence". Similarly, immigrants who had been in America longer would generally score higher
due to a greater familiarity with the language and culture (Gould, 1981).
The superiority of the Nordic blood is easily explained in that whites (including most
Northern Europeans) were more likely to be middle class, attend good schools, and speak
English. Knowledge of numbers, writing skills, and standardized school curriculum gave a clear
advantage to those who had attended westernized schools (Greene, 1941). For those not familiar
with testing situations, the simple experience of being in a crowed room performing a novel task
as military instructors shouted instructions must have been very anxiety provoking; particularly
those taking the Beta test where the instructions were given in pantomime. Recent immigrants
and the poor often did not have the scholastic experience to do well in these tests. American
blacks, for instance, could not attend higher level schools and were more often represented in the
poor so their scores were very low (Samelson, 1977). When individual tests were conducted on
those who scored extremely low, taking into account the entire individual and testing context,
they exhibited much higher intelligence than their test scores indicated (Yerkes, 1921).
The Civil Rights Movement and “Jensenism”
The intelligence movement lost a great deal of momentum following World War II due to
the public trepidation over the recent Nazi atrocities committed in the name of individual and
group superiority (Chase, 1980). The late 1950s began a more liberal political and public era
where individual differences and societal problems were seen more as a function of upbringing
and environmental conditions than natural group inferiority. Programs were proposed that would
eliminate the social and economic differences in America. Schools were desegregated and blacks
were allowed to enter schools and programs from which they were once prohibited. There were
some who were opposed to these changes because they were costly. By the mid to late 1960s,
these programs were beginning into full operation and coupled with the escalating Vietnam War
which was costing billions of dollars per year, the burden on the tax payers was enormous
(Chase, 1980). The ideas of personal rather than social responsibility for a person's place in life
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
6
began to spring up once again.
In 1969, the Harvard Educational Review, in an attempt to start a debate on the I.Q. issue,
solicited an article from Jensen refuting environmental explanations of intelligence. Having been
a recent convert to the biological determination of intelligence proposed by Galton and Goddard
(among others), his article stated very clearly that intelligence was decreasing in America, that
some groups were born less intelligent, and that one's intelligence level was not changeable
(Jensen, 1969). Although the poor were low in intelligence it was the blacks who were the least
intelligent and, as a result, social programs such as Head Start and compensatory education had
failed and would continue to fail because they had no possible chance of success. His solution
was that the less intelligent should be trained in more appropriate tasks while the more intelligent
were trained in tasks requiring complex thinking.
The public were outraged at his racially charged propositions. Jensen had ignored the
available medical data on the children enrolled in the Head Start program which showed that
many had illnesses, eye and ear problems, or mental or physical disabilities, all of which could
have easily hindered learning. Rich as well as poor children with uncorrected ear and eye
problems were found to perform less well in school (Chase, 1980). Similarly, most children in
the programs were poor and\or malnourished. Lowe (1969) found that in America, 29% of
children lived in poverty and 33% of all children under the age of six were malnourished (cited in
Chase, 1980). Since learning is a process influenced by development (which is influenced by
diet and nutrition) and environment, such problems early in childhood could easily have had an
effect on learning ability regardless of "intelligence level" (Hunt, 1969).
There were also problems within the programs themselves that had little to do with the
children or their race. Since Head Start was a new concept, no one really knew how to
implement or evaluate it properly. Even more damning was the fact that some school boards did
not want to implement Head Start and, as a result, purposely sabotaged the program (Cronbach,
1969). Even in those programs that were earnestly undertaken, the solution was a "mind fix"
rather than an "environment fix" or "body fix" (Prilleltensky, 1990). The effects of poverty,
malnourishment, and a history of racism and segregation on scholastic success were not being
confronted and still exerted a great deal of influence on "intelligence". Finally, Jensen
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
7
condemned all compensatory education based solely on eight weeks of Head Start data. Other
compensatory education programs had already been shown to be successful in increasing
"intelligence" scores and decreasing the student dropout rate by 63% (Cronbach, 1969).
The quality of Jensen's intellectual sources were also questioned. Along with the eugenic
minded ideas of Galton, Goddard, Brigham and others from the World War I era, he relied
heavily on Burt's finding that intelligence is 80% heritable. Burt believed that monozygotic (MZ)
twins were genetically equal so any similarities in their I.Q. scores should be a direct indication
of biological influences on intelligence. Over the course of many years, he complied a sample of
MZ twins reared separately and found that the correlation between their I.Q. scores was
approximately 0.80 and concluded that 80% of intelligence in heritable (Burt, 1966). Burt has
been discredited on many accounts including the fact that he doctored or fabricated some of his
data. For example, some of his correlations were found to be the same to three decimal places
even after the number of twin pairs rose from 26 to 58 when one would expect at least a .001
difference (Hearnshaw, 1979; Kamin, 1977). He provided no records on many of the twin pairs,
and the raw data or descriptions of his tests were not presented publicly (Hearnshaw, 1979). In a
similar manner, the “corrections” to the scores were never clearly explained (Kamin, 1977).
Other environmental factors were never considered such as the fact that the twin pairs had met
prior to being studied, some several years earlier, and so may have had a chance to notice and
comment on similarities (Farber, 1981). Similarly, MZ twins look alike and are the same age
which may have resulted in them being treated somewhat similarly even when separated. Kamin
(1981) has found that even DZ twins who look very similar have heritability correlations similar
to MZ twins. Finally, twins do not constitute a representative sample of the population,
especially those reared apart. Adoption is not random since children tend to be placed in homes
of the more well off and educated (although Burt (1966) insisted the adoptions in his sample
were truly random). Despite all of these flaws (in fairness, some of which Jensen had not yet
known) Burt's 80% heritability was still used.
The Modern Era
Although Jensen's arguments were not new, they were presented in a social and political
climate in which they could not be publicly tolerated. These very same ideas have been
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
8
presented in recent years, within a more right wing climate conducive to person rather than social
responsibility, and have been more widely accepted. The data may be more extensive and
complex but the basic ideas are still based on biological determinism and person rather than
social responsibility for change.
According to Rushton, the propensity of some individuals to be, among other things, low
in intelligence is a product of the evolution of races (Rushton, 1988). The environment in which
the mongoloid race evolved was scarce in resources, so they had to be more intelligent, have
fewer children, and invest much more time and effort into their survival if the race was to
survive. Today, as a result, the mongoloid race possesses more "K" traits such as high
intelligence, strong parental skills, and group consciousness. The evolutionary environment of
the blacks, on the other hand, was resource rich so high intelligence and parental investment were
not necessary. Today, as a result, the negroid race possess more "r" traits such as low
intelligence, weak parental ties (i.e. they have many children and pay little attention to them), and
low motivation. The white race is somewhere between the two, higher in "K" than "r" traits.
This has led to stable low intelligence in most blacks and some deviant whites. To support this
theory, Rushton relies on racial differences in penis length which he believes is an indication of
sexual prowess and parental investment (which is inversely related to intelligence). Those with
large penises procreate often and care little for their offsprings. He has reported that blacks have
the largest average penis length followed by whites and mongoloids (Rushton & Bogaert, 1987).
He has also claimed that cranial capacity (adjusted for height), which he believes provides an
indication of brain size and intelligence, is largest for mongoloids followed by whites and blacks.
The r/K theory is viewed as outdated and overstated even in the field of ecology in which
it was developed. It was never intended to be used for long term analysis or to be taken outside
of the short term historical and environmental context in which the behaviours occurred
(Anderson, 1991). Since Rushton could not possibly know the true environment of prehistoric
people, he could not know their evolutionary adaptation or their genetic variation. There is no
way for anyone to know if prehistoric races remained stationary or migrated, thus, Rushton has
no proof that the mongoloids evolved completely in arctic climates while blacks evolved
completely in the central tropics (Anderson, 1991). Also, his concept of race is rather narrow.
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
9
Basing racial boundaries on skin colour does not take into account that skin colour varies
considerably and can change over generations. Some have proposed many more than three races
while others have argued that the concept of race no longer exists (Wright, 1994). More genetic
variability can be found within than between racial groups (Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, &
Ziegler, 1991). A more appropriate approach would have been to separate the three races into
more homogeneous races.
Questions have been raised concerning the quality of his intellectual sources on penis
lenght differences. Weizmann et al., (1991) point out that Rushton and Bogaert (1987) cite
Noble (1982) who cited a journal on penis length which turned out to be the Penthouse Forum.
His principle source of evidence concerning penis length is the French Army Surgeon, an
anonymous book written in the 19th century when mysteries about blacks were rampant. The
book amounts to nothing more than anthropologic pornography (Davis & Whitten, 1987).
Rushton and Bogaert (1987) claim that Arab men are a mixture of white and black races and
have larger penises than white men but smaller than black men. However, they have no proof
that Arab men are a product of this racial mixture (Weizmann et al., 1991). They also insist that
penis length, sexuality, procreative ability or propensity, and parental style, are all inversely
related to intelligence. There is no proof that intelligent people attempt to procreate less often
and/or make innately better parents.
In his work on cranial size, Rushton's asserts that head size represents brain size (when
corrected for by body height) which represents brain weight and intelligence. However, it has
been found that head size has no relationship to brain volume and that there is no relationship
between body and brain sizes (Reed & Jensen, 1993; Wickett, Vernon, & Lee, 1994). If the body
height correction of brain sizes breaks down, then using Rushton's own data, the brain size of
whites becomes larger than that of mongoloids (Peters, 1995) which means whites should be
more intelligent than mongoloids.
Hernstein and Murray (1994) have written arguably the most popular piece of work on
the intelligence issue since World War I. Their arguments are not new yet the Bell Curve,
despite consisting of 845 pages of charts, graphs, and statistics novel to most lay readers, was the
top selling book for many months. Hernstein and Murray's main arguments are that intelligence
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
10
in the United States has declined over the past decades (especially among the poor and blacks),
that intelligence is inborn and unchangeable, and that social programs designed to increase
intelligence are a waste of time and money. The source of the problem is person oriented, thus
the solution should be based on those deviant individuals rather than on society. The core
arguments are similar to Jensen's (and all who came before) but the data is more extensive and
complex. Hernstein's personal bias is clear in his earlier work in which he proposed that the
average I.Q. of a nation is a perfect indicator of productivity (Hernstein, 1971). Japan's rise in
world economic power can be attributed to the fact that I.Q. is rising in Japan and falling in the
United States. To resurrect the United States to dominance once again, the average American
intelligence must be increased. Murray and Hernstein's solution, like Jensen's, involves training
the less intelligent in menial jobs while the more intelligent improve the quality of life in the
United States. The ideas are not much different from those a century ago (Beardsley, 1995). The
solutions may vary slightly but the concept remains the same--immobilize the stupid while the
intelligent middle class whites repopulate the world.
The first criticism of the Bell Curve should come as no surprise. Their main authority on
black racial inferiority is Jensen (who was based on Burt) (Lane, 1994). The problems run
deeper in both the quality of data and intellectual sources. They have some problems with the
current trends in worldwide I.Q. in that if genetic superiority is the reason for higher I.Q., and
there is a rise in inferior breeds, then the worldwide I.Q. should not be rising as it is (Beardsley,
1995). Also, if national productivity is dependent solely on I.Q. then those countries with the
largest increase should be outperforming previous generations but they do not. The fact is that
along with the rise in I.Q. there has been a worldwide rise in years of schooling, quality of
education, better diet and medical care, and other environmental factors related to intelligence
(Wiener, Weizmann, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1990). Hernstein and Murray's principle authority
on the Japanese I.Q. is Lynn who had at one time proclaimed Japanese I.Q. to be around 111
(Lynn, 1982) but re-evaluated it to be around 100 (Lynn, 1987) after it was discovered he used an
unrepresentative sample of wealthy urban Japanese children in westernized schools. In fact,
more representative samples of Japanese and American children have shown no difference in I.Q.
scores (Stevenson & Azuma, 1983). Another of Lynn's Japanese studies was shown to compare
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
11
I.Q. scores of Japanese students in 1985 with British students in 1978 and American students in
1972 (Lynn, Hampson, & Iwakawi, 1987). It is not the same to be 15, for example, in 1972 as it
is in 1985. Hernstein and Murray do not mention these problems although they soften the
difference between American and Japanese I.Q.'s to 3 points but increase it to 5 points in later
chapters (Lane, 1994).
Lynn is also a key contributor to the idea that blacks have lower I.Q. than whites.
Hernstein and Murray state that if I.Q. was influenced by environment rather than genes, then
African blacks should score higher than American blacks since African blacks have not had a
history of prejudice and racism. Lynn (1991) evaluated 11 African intelligence studies and
determined the average I.Q. of African blacks to be around 70-75, which is lower than the score
of 84 assigned to American blacks (Kamin, 1995). In Hernstein and Murray's view, this
constitutes a genetic explanation of intelligence differences between blacks and whites. Five of
the studies Lynn evaluated were conducted in South Africa where the attitude toward blacks has
been almost as unfavourable as in America, while most other studies were conducted by those in
favour of subjugating blacks in Africa (Kamin, 1995). Many studies also used Raven's
Progressive Matrix Test scores which cannot be converted to I.Q. scores (because they are not
symmetrical about a mean) although Lynn did just that (Lane, 1994). Lynn also ignored
warnings by some original authors like Owen (1989) who stated that the black Africans were not
familiar with white culture and language, on which the Progressive Matrix test is based.
Hernstein and Murray ignored contradictory studies such as that of Crawford-Nutt (1976) who
found that African black students in westernized schools scored higher in progressive matrix
scores than American white students.
Another major area of problem is with the reported multiple regressions and their
concepts of SES. With SES held constant, I.Q. predicted negative behaviours such as
criminality, school dropout,and poor job performance. When I.Q. was held constant, no
relationships emerged, therefore, they proclaimed I.Q. to be the major cause of social ills. The
problem is that they treated their relationships as if they were causal and, as "respected scientists"
(Brimelow, 1994), should have know that their statistical method does not allow such statements.
They ignore many other studies which show relatioinships between SES or environment and I.Q
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
12
(Kamin, 1995). Also, their conceptions of intelligence and SES are very limited. They assume
that I.Q. scores represent true intelligence and that intelligence is a single measurable thing
(Beardsley, 1995). Such a simple concept is accepted by very few today. When this idea breaks
down their whole argument does as well (Gould, 1994). Their divisions of SES are based on job
and financial status gathered from self reports which may be questioned in terms of accuracy and
truthfulness (Kamin, 1995). The context and history surrounding the reports of job and financial
status were not considered. It should not be a surprise that children of poor parents remain poor
since the conditions in which lower SES children grow and develop often includes poor diet,
poor medical care, low self esteem, and poor education. Many low SES individuals do not have
English as a first language which handicaps the parents and the children in learning and
advancing socially and economically. It is these factor, not the actual intelligence or SES level of
parents that leads to poverty in children (Kamin, 1995).
Another major statistical error is that they report the form of the relationships in bright,
bold, colourful graphs and charts, yet they only mention the strength of the relationships near the
conclusion of the book in an appendix where most would not look (Gould, 1994). The strengths
account for only 5% to 10% of the variance (usually closer to 5 than 10). In other words,
intelligence (which is only 70% heritable in their view) only accounts for 5% to 10% of the
negative behaviours (such as criminality) in the relationships (Gould, 1994). With such weak
relationships between their variables, their entire argument must be questioned. Without any
strong proof or backing, they are left only with theoretical propaganda.
Conclusion
The fact that the recent "movement" in intelligence has shown no movement at all should
call into question the usefulness of biologically determined intelligence. However, in a political
and social climate conducive to individual rather than social responsibility, the concepts of an
innate, unchangeable intelligence, which can be used to define all that is wrong with society, is
very attractive--regardless of how weak the data or how personally involved the intellectual (i.e.
racist) sources of the data may be. The intention of this paper was not to insist that biology plays
no part in intelligence, or any other personality characteristic, but that it is only a fraction of the
truth. Biology may play a role in determining intelligence but only in combination with a wide
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
13
variety of other factors such as diet, medical care, pollution, early childhood experience,
education level, and SES to name but a few. It would be easy to conclude this paper calling for
more research highlighting the environmental or interactional (person by situation) influences but
I feel a more appropriate plea would be to call for an end to the biological exclusiveness found in
the intelligence "stagnation".
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
14
References
Anderson, J. L. (1991). Rushton’s racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and
method. Canadian Psychology, 32, 51-60.
Beardsley, T. (1995). For whom the Bell Curve really tolls. Scientific American, January,
14-18.
Binet, A. (1903). Etude Experimentale de l'Intelligence. Paris: Schleicher.
Brigham, C. C. (1923). A Study of American Intelligence. Princeton University Press.
Brigham, C. C. (1930). Intelligence tests of immigrant groups. Psychological Review, 37,
158-165.
Brimelow, P. (1994). For whom the "Bell" tolls. Forbes, October 24, 153-163.
Burt, C. (1966). The genetic determination of differences in intelligence: A study of monozy
gotic twins reared together and apart. British Journal of Psychology, 57, 137-153.
Buss, A. (1976). Galton and the birth of differential psychology and eugenics: Social, political
and economic forces. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 12, 47-58.
Chase, M. (1980). The Legacy fo Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Crawford-Nutt. D. (1976). Are black scores on Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrixes an
artifact of method of test presentation? Psychologia Africana, 16, 201-206.
Cronbach, J. L. (1968). Heredity, environment, and educational policy. Harvard Educational
Review, 39, 338-347.
Davis, D. L., & Whitten, R. G. (1987). The cross-cultural study of human sexuality. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 16, 69-98.
Fancher, R. E. (1985). The Intelligence Men: Makers of the I.Q Controversy. New York:
Norton.
Farber, S. L. (1981). Identical Twins Reared Apart: A Reanalysis. New York: Basic Books.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary Genius. London: MacMillan.
Goddard, H. H. (1912). The Kalikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness.
New York: Macmillan.
Goddard, H. H. (1917). Mental tests and the immigrant. Journal of Delinquency, 2, 243-277.
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
15
Gould, S. J. (1981). Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.
Gould, S. J. (1994). The curveball. New Yorker, November 28, 139-149.
Greene, E. B. (1941). Measurements of Human Behavior. New York: Oddysey.
Hearnshaw, L. S. (1979). Cyril Burt: Psychologist. New York: Cornell University Press.
Hernstein, R. J. (1971). IQ. Atlantic Monthly, 228, 43-64.
Hernstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press.
Hunt, J. McV. (1969). Has compensatory education failed? Has it been attempted? Harvard
Educational Review, 39, 278-300.
Jensen, A. R. (1968). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard
Educational Review, 39, 1-123.
Kamin, L. J. (1974). The science and politics of I.Q. Social Research, 41, 387-425.
Kamin, L. J. (1977). The Science and Politics of I.Q. Harmondswoth, England: Penguin Books.
Kamin, L. J. (1981). The Intelligence Controversy. New York: Wiley.
Kamin, L. J. (1995). Behind the Bell Curve. Scientific American, February, 99-103.
Kevles, D. J. (1968). Testing the Army's intelligence: Psychologists and the military in World
War I. Journal of American History, 55, 565-581.
Lane, C. (1994). The tainted sources of "The Bell Curve". The New York Review, December
1, 249-287.
Lynn, R. (1982). I.Q. in Japan and the United States shows a growing disparity. Nature, 297,
222-223.
Lynn, R. (1987). The intelligence of the mongoloids: A psychometric, evolutionary and
neurological theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 813-814.
Lynn, R. (1991). Race differences in intelligence: A global perspective. Mankind Quarterly,
31, 255-272.
Lynn, R., Hampson, S. L., & Iwakawi, S. (1987). Abstract reasoning and spatial abilities among
American, British and Japanese adolescents. Mankind Quarterly, 27, 379-402.
McLeish, J. (1963). The Science of Behaviour. London: Barrie and Rockliffe.
Mill, J. S. (1971). Autobiography. London: Oxford University Press.
Owen, K. (1989). Test and Item Bias: The Use of the Junior Aptitude Test as a Common Test
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
16
Battery for White, Indian, and Black pupils in Standard 7. Pretoria: Human Science
Research Council.
Peters, M. (1995). Race differences in brain size. American Psychologist, 50, 947-948.
Prilleltensky, I. (1990). On the social and political implications of cognitive psychology.
Journal of Mind and Behavior, 11, 127-136.
Reed, T. E. & Jensen, A. R. (1993). Cranial capacity: New caucasian data and comments on
Rushton's claimed Mongoloid-Caucasoid brain size differences. Intelligence, 17,
423-431.
Rushton, J. P., & Bogaert, A. F. (1987). Race differences in sexual behaviour: Testing an
evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 529-551.
Samelson, F. (1977). World War I intelligence testing and the development of psychology.
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 13, 274-282.
Spearman, C. (1904). 'General Intelligence' objectively determined and measured. American
Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.
Stern, W. (1914). The Psychological Methods of Intelligence Testing. Baltimore: Warwick and
York.
Stevenson, H. & Azuma, H. (1983). I.Q. in Japan and the United States. Nature, 17, 291-292.
Terman, L. (1920). Condensed Guide for the Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Intelligence
Tests. New York: Houghton-Miffin.
Weizmann, F., Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Ziegler, M. (1991). Eggs, eggplants, and
eggheads: A rejoinder to Rushton. Canadian Psychology, 32, 43-50.
Wickett, J. C., Vernon, P. A., & Lee, D. H. (1994). In vivo brain size, head perimeter, and
intelligence in a sample of healthy adult females. Personality and Individual
Differences, 16, 831-838.
Wiener, N. I., Weizmann, F., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Ziegler, M. (1990). I.Q., economic
productivity and eugenics. International Journal of Dynamic Assessment and Instruction,
1, 105-115.
Wright, L. (1994). One drop of blood. The New Yorker, July 25, 46-55.
Yerkes, R. M. (1921). Psychological examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the
Running head: MOVEMENT IN INTELLIGENCE
National Academy of Sciences, 15, 1-890.
17