CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Cognitive Abilities and TestingAcademic Freedom and PoliticsEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media

Rindermann, Heiner, Becker, David, Coyle, Thomas R.·2020·Intelligence
DOI 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Experts (Nmax = 102 answering) on intelligence completed a survey about IQ research, controversies, and the media. The survey was conducted in 2013 and 2014 using the Internet-based Expert Questionnaire on Cognitive Ability (EQCA). In the current study, we examined the background of the experts (e.g., nationality, gender, religion, and political orientation) and their positions on intelligence research, controversial issues, and the media. Most experts were male (83%) and from Western countries (90%). Political affiliations ranged from the left (liberal, 54%) to the right (conservative, 24%), with more extreme responses within the left-liberal spectrum. Experts rated the media and public debates as far below adequate. Experts with a left (liberal, progressive) political orientation were more likely to have positive views of the media (around r = |.30|). In contrast, compared to female and left (liberal) experts, male and right (conservative) experts were more likely to endorse the validity of IQ testing (correlations with gender, politics: r = .55, .41), the g factor theory of intelligence (r = .18, .34), and the impact of genes on US Black-White differences (r = .50, .48). The paper compares the results to those of prior expert surveys and discusses the role of experts' backgrounds, with a focus on political orientation and gender. An underrepresentation of viewpoints associated with experts' background characteristics (i.e., political views, gender) may distort research fin…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited works that were retracted

Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1126/science.1256151

    Major

    The cited work was retracted on 2015-06-05 (notice 10.1126/science.aac6638), before this paper was published (2020-01). Its authors could have known.

    Cited work 10.1126/science.1256151 · retracted 2015-06-05 · notice 10.1126/science.aac6638 · this paper published 2020-01

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1126/science.1201068

    Major

    The cited work was retracted on 2011-12-02 (notice 10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a), before this paper was published (2020-01). Its authors could have known.

    Cited work 10.1126/science.1201068 · retracted 2011-12-02 · notice 10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a · this paper published 2020-01

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1073/pnas.1018601108

    Info

    The cited work was retracted on 2025-05-01 (notice 10.1073/pnas.2508040122), not before this paper was published (2020-01).

    Cited work 10.1073/pnas.1018601108 · retracted 2025-05-01 · notice 10.1073/pnas.2508040122 · this paper published 2020-01

3 of 3

Cites

3 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Arm, 2016, We brought Charles Murray to campus. Guess what happened, The New York Times
  2. Becker, 1938, Die Intelligenzprüfung unter völkischem und typologischem Gesichtspunkt. [Intelligence measurement from a national-völkisch and typological point of view.], Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie und Charakterkunde, 55, 15
  3. Beinart, 2017, A violent attack on free speech at Middlebury, The Atlantic
  4. Benedict, 2014, Gay advocates can shift same-sex marriage views, New York Times
  5. Gillie, 1976, Crucial data was faked by eminent psychologist, London: Sunday Times, 1
  6. HXA Executive Team, 2018, The problem with open letters — Noah Carl and beyond, Heterodox Academy
  7. Oh, 2015, University revokes hire offer after allegations of publishing falsified data, The Daily Princetonian
  8. Tengely-Evans, 2018, Students protest at University College London over racist eugenics conference, Social Work, 2587
  9. Tost, 2016, Evaluation of psychological and educational research using the bibliometric databases Scopus and Google Scholar, Zeitschrift für Evaluation, 15, 241

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rindermann, H., Becker, D., & Coyle, T. R.
Affiliations
  • Chemnitz University of Technology (DE)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
Corresponding author
Rindermann, Heiner
ORCID
Venue
Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
78
Pages
101406
ISSN
0160-2896 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
OpenAlex
W2984142544
Cited by
50
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4
FWCI
6.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation's Interdisciplinary Behavioral and Social Science Research Competition (IBSS-L 1620457)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
expert opinion, intelligence research, heritability of intelligence, political orientation, gender differences, higher education policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review