Role of General Mental Ability in

232 Pages·2005·2.03 MB·English

HUMAN PERFORMANCE,15(1/2),1–2
Copyright ©2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Introduction to the Special Issue: Role
of General Mental Ability in Industrial,
Work, and Organizational Psychology
Deniz S. Ones
Department of Psychology
University of Minnesota
Chockalingam Viswesvaran
Department of Psychology
Florida International University
Individualdifferencesthathaveconsequencesforworkbehaviors(e.g.,jobperfor-
mance) are of great concern for organizations, both public and private. General
mentalabilityhasbeenapopular,althoughmuchdebated,constructinIndustrial,
Work, and Organizational (IWO) Psychology for almost 100 years. Individuals
differ on their endowments of a critical variable—intelligence—and differences
on this variable have consequences for life outcomes.
Asthecenturydrewtoaclose,wethoughtitmightbeusefultoassessthestate
ofourknowledgeandthesourcesofdisagreementsabouttheroleofgeneralmen-
talabilityinIWOpsychology.Tothisend,withthesupportofMurrayBarrick,the
2000 Program Chair for the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology
(SIOP),weputtogetheradebateforSIOP’sannualconference.Thesession’spar-
ticipants were Frank Schmidt, Linda Gottfredson, Milton Hakel, Jerry Kehoe,
KevinMurphy,JamesOuttz,andMalcolmRee.Thedebate,whichtookplaceat
the2000annualconferenceofSIOP,drewastanding-room-onlyaudience,despite
being held in a room that could seat over 300 listeners. The questions that were
raisedbytheaudiencesuggestedthattherewasroomintheliteraturetofleshout
the ideas expressed by the debaters.
Thus,whenJimFarr,thecurrenteditorofHumanPerformance,approachedus
withtheideaofputtingtogetheraspecialissuebasedonthe“gdebate,”wewere
enthusiastic.However,itoccurredtousthattherewereotherimportantandinfor-
2 ONES AND VISWESVARAN
mativeperspectivesontheroleofcognitiveabilityinIWOpsychologythatwould
be valuable to include in the special issue. For these, we tapped Mary Tenopyr,
JesusSalgado,HaroldGoldstein,NeilAnderson,andRobertSternberg,andtheir
coauthors.
The12articlesinthisspecialissueofHumanPerformanceuniquelysummarize
thestateofourknowledgeofgasitrelatestoIWOpsychologyandmasterfully
drawoutareasofquestionandcontention.Weareverypleasedthateachofthe12
contributingarticleshighlightsimilaritiesanddifferencesamongperspectivesand
shedlightonresearchneedsforthefuture.Weshouldalertthereadersthattheor-
derofthearticlesinthespecialissueisgearedtoenhancethesynergyamongthem.
In the last article of the special issue, we summarize the major themes that run
acrossallthearticlesandofferareviewofcontrastsinviewpoints.Wehopethat
the final product is informative and beneficial to researchers, graduate students,
practitioners, and decision makers.
Thereareseveralindividualsthatwewouldliketothankfortheirhelpinthe
creationofthisspecialissue.Firstandforemost,wethankalltheauthorswhohave
producedextremelyhighqualitymanuscripts.Theirinsightshaveenrichedourun-
derstandingoftheroleofginIWOpsychology.Wewerealsoimpressedwiththe
timelinessofalltheauthors,aswellastheirreceptivenesstofeedbackthatwepro-
vided for revisions. We also extend our thanks to Barbara Hamilton, Rachel
Gamm,andJocelynWilsonformuchappreciatedclericalhelp.Theirsupporthas
madeoureditorialworkalittleeasier.Financialsupportforthespecialissueedito-
rialofficewasprovidedbytheDepartmentsofPsychologyofFloridaInternational
UniversityandtheUniversityofMinnesota,aswellastheHellervikChairendow-
ment.WearealsogratefultoJimFarrforallowingustoputtogetherthisspecialis-
sue and for his support. We hope that his foresight about the importance of the
topicwillservetheliteraturewell.Wealsoappreciatetheintellectualstimulation
provided by our colleagues at the University of Minnesota and Florida Interna-
tional University. Finally, our spouses Saraswathy Viswesvaran and Ates Haner
providedustheenvironmentwherewecoulddevoteuninterruptedtimetothispro-
ject.Theyalsohaveourgratitude(andprobablyabetterunderstandingandknowl-
edge ofgthan most nonpsychologists).
We dedicate this issue to the memory of courageous scholars (e.g., Galton,
Spearman, Thorndike, Cattell, Eysenck) whose insights have helped the science
around cognitiveabilitytoblossom during theearlydaysofstudying individual
differences.Wehopethathowtobestusemeasuresofgtoenhancesocietalprog-
ressandwell-beingofindividualswillbebetterunderstoodandutilizedaroundthe
globe in the next 100 years.
HUMAN PERFORMANCE,15(1/2),3–23
Copyright ©2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
g2K
Malcolm James Ree
Center for Leadership Studies
Our Lady of the Lake University
Thomas R. Carretta
Air Force Research Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
Toanswerthequestionsposedbytheorganizersofthemillennialdebateong,or
general cognitive ability, we begin by briefly reviewing its history. We tackle the
questionofwhatgisbyaddressinggasapsychometricscoreandexaminingitspsy-
chological and physiological correlates. Then tacit knowledge and other non-g
characteristicsarediscussed.Next,wereviewthepracticalutilityofginpersonnel
selection and conclude by explaining its importance to both organizations and
individuals.
The earliest empirical studies of general cognitive ability, g, were conducted by
CharlesSpearman(1927,1930),althoughtheideahasseveralintellectualprecur-
sors,amongthemSamuelJohnson(1709–1784,seeJensen,1998,p.19)andSir
FrancisGalton(1869).Spearman(1904)suggestedthatalltestsmeasuretwofac-
tors,acommoncorecalledgandoneormorespecifics,s ,…s .Thegeneralcom-
1 n
ponentwaspresentinalltests,whereasthespecificcomponentwastestunique.
Each test could have one or more different specific components. Spearman also
observedthatscouldbefoundincommonacrossalimitednumberoftestsallow-
ingforanarithmeticfactorthatwasdistinctfromg,butfoundinseveralarithmetic
tests.Thesewerecalled“groupfactors.”Spearman(1937)notedthatgroupfactors
could be either broad or narrow and that s could not be measured without also
measuringg.
Asaresultofhisworkwithgands,Spearman(1923)developedtheprincipleof
“indifferenceoftheindicator.”Itmeansthatwhenconstructingintelligencetests,
RequestsforreprintsshouldbesenttoMalcolmJamesRee,OurLadyoftheLakeUniversity,411S.
W. 24th Street, San Antonio, TX 78207–4689. E-mail: [email protected]
4 REE AND CARRETTA
thespecificcontentoftheitemsisnotimportantaslongasthosetakingthetestper-
ceiveitinthesameway.Althoughthetestcontentcannotbeignored,itismerelya
vehicleforthemeasurementofg.AlthoughSpearmanwastalkingmostlyabout
testcontent(e.g.,verbal,math,spatial),theconceptofindifferenceoftheindicator
extendstomeasurementmethods,someofwhichwerenotyetinuseatthetime
(e.g., computers, neural conductive velocity, psychomotor, oral–verbal).
Spearman(1904)developedamethodoffactoranalysistoanswerthevexing
question:“Dideachofthehumanabilities(or‘faculties’astheywerethencalled)
representadifferingmentalprocess?”Iftheanswerwasyes,thedifferentabilities
shouldbeuncorrelatedwitheachother,andseparatelatentfactorsshouldbethe
sourcesforthedifferentabilities.Repeatedly,theanswerwasno.Havingobserved
theemergenceofginthedata,aneschatologicalquestionemerged.Whatisg?Al-
though the question may be answered in several ways, we have chosen three as
coveringbroadtheoreticalandpracticalconcerns.Thesearegasapsychometric
score, as psychological correlates ofg, and as physiological correlates ofg.
PSYCHOMETRICg
Spearman(1904)firstdemonstratedtheemergenceofginabatteryofschooltests
includingClassics,French,English,Math,Pitch,andMusic.Duringthe20thcen-
tury,manycompetingmultiple-factortheoriesofabilityhavesurfaced,onlytodis-
appearwhensubjectedtoempiricalverification(see,e.g.,Guilford,1956,1959;
Thurstone,1938).Psychometrically,gcanbeextractedfromabatteryoftestswith
diversecontent.Thecorrelationmatrixshoulddisplay“positivemanifold,”mean-
ingthatallthescoresshouldbepositivelycorrelated.Therearethreereasonswhy
cognitive ability scores might not display positive manifold—namely, reversed
scoring, range restriction, and unreliability.
Threats to Positive Manifold
Reversed scoring. Reversedscoringisoftenfoundintimedscoressuchas
reactiontimeorinspectiontime.Inthesetests,thescoresarefrequentlythenum-
berofmillisecondsnecessarytomaketheresponse.Agreatertimeintervalisin-
dicativeofpoorerperformance.Whencorrelatedwithscoreswherehighervalues
areindicativeofbetterperformance,theresultingcorrelationwillnotbepositive.
Thiscanbecorrectedbysubtractingthereversedtimescorefromalargenumber
sothathighervaluesareassociatedwithbetterperformance.Thislineartransfor-
mationwillnotaffectthemagnitudeofthecorrelation,butitwillassociatebetter
performance with high scores for each test.
SELECTION AND COGNITIVE ABILITY 5
Range restriction. Range restriction is the phenomenon observed when
priorselectionreducesthevarianceinoneormorevariables.Suchareductionin
variancedistortsthecorrelationbetweentwovariables,typicallyleadingtoare-
ductioninthecorrelation.Forexample,ifthecorrelationbetweencollegegrades
andcollegequalificationtestscoreswerecomputedataselectiveIvyLeagueuni-
versity, the correlation would appear low because the range of the scores on the
college qualification test has been restricted by the selectivity of the university.
Rangerestrictionisnotanewdiscovery.Pearson(1903)describeditwhenhe
firstdemonstratedtheproduct–momentcorrelation.Inaddition,hederivedthesta-
tisticalcorrectionsbasedonthesameassumptionsasfortheproduct–momentcor-
relation. In almost all cases, range restriction reduces correlations, producing
downwardlybiasedestimates,evenazerocorrelationwhenthetruecorrelationis
moderate or strong. As demonstrated by Thorndike (1949) and Ree, Carretta,
Earles, and Albert (1994), the correlation can change sign as a consequence of
rangerestriction.Thischangeinsignnegatesthepositivemanifoldofthematrix.
However,thenegationistotallyartifactual.Thepropercorrectionsmustbeapplied
whether “univariate” (Thorndike, 1949) or “multivariate” (Lawley, 1943). Linn,
Harnish,andDunbar(1981)empiricallydemonstratedthatthecorrectionforrange
restriction is generally conservative and does not inflate the estimate of the true
population value of the correlation.
Unreliability. Thethirdthreattopositivemanifoldisunreliability.Itiswell
known1thatthecorrelationoftwovariablesislimitedbythegeometricmeanof
theirreliabilities.Althoughunreliabilitycannotchangethesignofthecorrelation,
itcanreduceittozeroornearzero,threateningpositivemanifold.Unreliabletests
neednotdenigratepositivemanifold.Thesolutionistorefineyourtests,adding
more items if necessary to increase the reliability. Near the turn of the century,
Spearman(1904)derivedthecorrectionforunreliability,orcorrectionforattenua-
tion. Application of the correction is typically done for theoretical reasons as it
providesanestimateofthecorrelationbetweentwoscoreshadperfectlyreliable
measures been used.
Representingg
Frequently,gisrepresentedbythehighestfactorinahierarchicalfactoranalysisof
abatteryofcognitiveabilitytests.Itcanalsoberepresentedasthefirstunrotated
principalcomponentorprincipalfactor.ReeandEarles(1991)demonstratedthat
anyofthesethreemethodswillbeeffectiveforestimatingg.ReeandEarlesalso
demonstratedthat,givenenoughtests,thesimplesumofthetestscoreswillpro-
1HunterandSchmidt(1990)noted,“Sincethelate1890s,wehaveknownthattheerrorofmeasure-
ment attentuates the correlation coefficient” (p. 117).
6 REE AND CARRETTA
duceameasureofg.ThismaybeattributedtoWilks’stheorem(Ree,Carretta,&
Earles,1998;Wilks,1938).Theproportionoftotalvarianceaccountedforbygina
testbatteryrangesfromabout30%to65%,dependingonthecompositionofthe
constituent tests. Jensen (1980, pp. 216) provided an informative review.
Gould(1981)statedthatgcanbe“rotatedaway”amonglowerorderfactors.
This is erroneous, as rotation simply distributes the variance attributable to g
amongallthefactors.Itdoesnotdisappear.Interestedreadersarereferredtoatext
on factor analysis.
Todispelthechargethatgisjust“academicintelligence”(Sternberg&Wagner,
1993), we demonstrate a complex nexus of g and nonacademic activities. The
broadnessoftheseactivities,rangingfromaccidentpronenesstotheabilitytotaste
certain chemicals, exposes the falsehood thatgis just academic intelligence.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CORRELATES OFg
Severalpsychologicalcorrelatesofghavebeenidentified.Brand(1987)provided
animpressivelistandsummaryof48characteristicspositivelycorrelatedwithg
and19negativelycorrelatedwithg.Brandincludedreferencesforallexamples,
listed later. Ree and Earles (1994, pp. 133–134) organized these characteristics
into several categories. These categories and examples for each category follow:
• Abilities (analytic style, eminence, memory, reaction time, reading).
• Creativity/artistic (craftwork, musical ability).
• Health and fitness (dietary preference, height, infant mortality, longevity,
obesity).
• Interests/ choices (breadth and depth of interest, marital partner, sports
participation).
• Moral ((delinquency (–)*, lie scores (–), racial prejudice (–), values).
• Occupational (income, military rank, occupational status, socioeconomic
status).
• Perceptual (ability to perceive brief stimuli, field-independence, myopia).
• Personality (achievement motivation, altruism, dogmatism (–)).
• Practical (practical knowledge, social skills).
• Other (accident proneness (–), motor skills, talking speed).
• * Indicates a negative correlation.
Noting its pervasive influence on human characteristics, Brand (1987) com-
mented, “gis to psychology as carbon is to chemistry” (p. 257).
Cognitive and psychomotor abilities often are viewed as unrelated (Carroll,
1993;Fleishman&Quaintance,1984).Thisviewmaybetheresultofdissimilarity
ofappearanceandmethodofmeasurementforcognitiveandpsychomotortests.
SELECTION AND COGNITIVE ABILITY 7
Severalrecentstudies,however,haveshownamodestrelationbetweencognitive
and psychomotor ability (Carretta & Ree, 1997a; Chaiken, Kyllonen, & Tirre,
2000;Rabbitt,Banerji,&Szymanski,1989;Ree&Carretta,1994;Tirre&Raouf,
1998), with uncorrected correlations between .20 and .69.
Althoughthesourceoftherelationsbetweencognitiveandpsychomotorability
isunknown,ReeandCarretta(1994)hypothesizedthatitmightbeduetothere-
quirementtoreasonwhiletakingthetests.CarrettaandRee(1997b)proposedthat
practicalandtechnicalknowledgealsomightcontributetothisrelation.Chaikenet
al. (2000) suggested that the relation might be explained by the role of working
memorycapacity(asurrogateofg;seeStauffer,Ree,&Carretta,1996)inlearning
complex and novel tasks.
PHYSIOLOGICAL CORRELATES OFg
Aseriesofphysiologicalcorrelateshaslongbeenpostulated.HartandSpearman
(1914)andSpearman(1927)speculatedthatgwastheconsequenceof“neuralen-
ergy,”butdidnotspecifyhowthatmentalenergycouldbemeasured.Theyalsodid
notspecifythemechanism(s)thatproducedthisenergy.Thespeculativephysio-
logicalcausesofgwere“energy,”“plasticity,”and“theblood.”Inasimilarway,
Thomson(1939)speculatedthatthiswasdueto“samplingofmentalbonds.”No
empirical studies were conducted on these speculated causes. Little was known
aboutthehumanbrainandgduringthisearlierera.Today,muchmoreisknown
andthereisagrowingbodyofknowledge.Wenowdiscussthecorrelatesdemon-
strated by empirical research.
Brain Size and Structure
Thereisapositivecorrelationbetweengandbrainsize.VanValen(1974)founda
correlation of .3, whereas Broman, Nichols, Shaughnessy, and Kennedy (1987)
foundcorrelationintherangeof.1to.2forasurrogatemeasure,headperimeter(a
relativelypoormeasureofbrainsize).Evidenceaboutthecorrelationbetweenbrain
sizeandgwasimprovedwiththeadventofmoreadvancedmeasurementtechniques,
especially MRI. In a precedent-setting study, Willerman, Schultz, Rutledge, and
Bigler(1991)estimatedthebrainsize-gcorrelationat.35.Andreasenetal.(1993)
reportedthesecorrelationsseparatelyformenandwomenas.40and.45,respec-
tively.Theyalsofoundcorrelationsforspecificbrainsectionvolumessuchasthe
cerebellumandthehippocampus.Otherresearchershavereportedsimilarvalues.
Schultz,Gore,Sodhi,andAnderson(1993)reportedr=.43;Wickett,Vernon,and
Lee(1994)reportedr=.39;andEgan,Wickett,andVernon(1995)reportedr=.48.
WillermanandSchultz(1996)notedthatthiscumulativeevidence“providesthefirst
solidleadforunderstandinggatabiologicallevelofanalysis”(p.16).
8 REE AND CARRETTA
Brainmyelinationhasbeenfoundtobecorrelatedwithg.Frearson,Eysenck,
andBarrett(1990)suggestedthatthemyelinationhypothesiswasconsistentwith
brighterpeoplebeingfasterinmentalactivities.Schultz(1991)foundacorrelation
of.54betweentheamountofbrainmyelinationandginyoungadults.Asameans
ofexplanation,Waxman(1992)suggestedthatmyelinationreduces“noise”inthe
neural system. Miller (1996) and Jensen (1998) have provided helpful reviews.
Corticalsurfaceareaalsohasbeenlinkedtog.Anearlypostmortemstudyby
Haug(1987)foundacorrelationbetweenoccupationalprestige,asurrogatemea-
sureofg,andcorticalarea.WillermanandSchultz(1996)suggestedthatcortical
area might be a good index based on the studies of Jouandet et al. (1989) and
Tramo et al. (1995). Eysenck (1982) provided an excellent earlier review.
Brain Electrical Potential
Severalstudieshaveshowncorrelationsbetweenvariousindexesofbrainelectri-
calpotentialsandg.ChalkeandErtl(1965)firstpresenteddatasuggestingarela-
tion between average evoked potential (AEP) and measures of g. Their findings
subsequentlyweresupportedbyErtlandSchafer(1969),whoobservedcorrela-
tionsfrom–.10to–.35forAEPandscoresontheWechslerIntelligenceScalefor
Children.ShucardandHorn(1972)foundsimilarcorrelationsrangingfrom–.15
to –.32 for visual AEP and measures of crystallizedgand fluidg.
Speed of Neural Processing
ReedandJensen(1992)observedacorrelationof.37betweenneuralconductive
velocity(NCV)andmeasuredintelligenceforanopticnerveleadingtothebrain.
Faster NCV was associated with higherg. Confirming replications are needed.
Brain Glucose Metabolism Rate
Haieretal.(1988)observedanegativecorrelationbetweenbrainglucosemetabo-
lism and performance on the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices, a highly
g-loadedtest.Haier,Siegel,Tang,Able,andBuchsbaum(1992)foundsupportfor
their theory of brain efficiency and intelligence in brain glucose metabolism re-
search.However,Larson,Haier,LaCasse,andHazen(1995)suggestedthattheef-
ficiency hypothesis may be dependent on task type, and urged caution.
Physical Variables
Therearephysicalvariablesthatarerelatedtog,butthecausalmechanismsareun-
known.Itisevendifficulttospeculateaboutthemechanism,muchlessthereason,
fortherelation.Thesephysicalvariablesincludetheabilitytocurlthetongue,the
SELECTION AND COGNITIVE ABILITY 9
abilitytotastethechemicalphenylthiocarbimide,asthmaandotherallergies,basal
metabolic rate in children, blood antigens such as IgA, facial features, myopia,
numberofhomozygousgeneticloci,presenceorabsenceofthemasaintermediain
thebrain,serumuricacidlevel,andvital(lung)capacity.Forareview,seeJensen
(1998) and Ree and Carretta (1998).
NONCOGNITIVE TRAITS, SPECIFIC ABILITIES,
AND SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE
The use of noncognitive traits, specific abilities, and knowledge has often been
proposedascriticalinpersonnelselectionandforcomprehensionoftherelations
betweenhumancharacteristicsandoccupationalperformance.Althoughspecific
abilities and knowledge are correlated with g, noncognitive traits, by definition,
arenot.Forexample,McClelland(1993)suggestedthatundercommoncircum-
stances noncognitive traits such as “motivation” may be better predictors of job
performancethancognitiveabilities.SternbergandWagner(1993)proposedusing
tests of practical intelligence and tacit knowledge rather than tests of what they
termed“academicintelligence.”Theirdefinitionoftacitknowledgeis“thepracti-
calknowhowoneneedsforsuccessonthejob”(p.2).SternbergandWagnerde-
fined practical intelligence as a general form of tacit knowledge.
SchmidtandHunter(1993),inanassessmentofSternbergandWagner(1993),
notedthattheirconceptsoftacitknowledgeandpracticalintelligenceareredun-
dantwiththewell-establishedconstructofjobknowledgeandarethereforesuper-
fluous.SchmidtandHunterfurthernotedthatjobknowledgeismorebroadlyde-
finedthaneithertacitknowledgeorpracticalintelligenceandhaswell-researched
relations with other familiar constructs such as intelligence, job experience, and
job performance.
Ree and Earles (1993), in a response to Sternberg and Wagner (1993) and
McClelland(1993),notedalackofempiricalevidencefortheconstructsoftacit
knowledge,practicalintelligence,andsocialclass.ReeandEarlesalsonotedsev-
eralmethodologicalissuesaffectingtheinterpretabilityofSternbergandWagner’s
and McClelland’s results (e.g., range restriction, sampling error, small samples).
gANDSAS PREDICTORS OF OCCUPATIONAL
CRITERIA AND IN PERSONNEL SELECTION
Althoughweoftentalkaboutjobperformanceinthesingular,thereareseveraldis-
tinctive components to occupational performance. Having the knowledge, tech-
niques, and skills needed to perform the job is one broad component. Another
broadcomponentistrainingorretrainingforpromotionsornewjobsorjuststay-