Cited by 76Cognitive Abilities and TestingSocial and Intergroup PsychologyRace, Genetics, and Society

Group Differences in Intelligence

Loehlin, John C.·2000·Handbook of Intelligence

Abstract

INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP DIFFERENCES Individual differences are primary; group differences are secondary. The individual is the biological and societal unit that develops, that learns, that thinks, that wants, that feels, that acts. The group is a collection of individuals – sometimes just that, sometimes with a structure of its own. The individual members of any species, such as humans, have a great many characteristics in common; indeed, judged against the varied forms of life on this earth one might deem them virtually indistinguishable. Yet from a viewpoint within the human species, we see them as differing in an array of biological and psychological characteristics, and these differences are often of intense social, personal, and economic interest to us. On the basis of such individual variation, individuals may be classified in numerous ways and for various purposes into subgroups. A particular human may be placed simultaneously into groups according to age, sex, occupation, ancestry, religious preference, marital status, home ownership, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, television viewing habits, taste in soft drinks, and any number of other criteria. These classifications can be said to be secondary in the sense that they derive from already-existing characteristics of the individual; that someone may choose to classify an individual into one or another category does not in itself change that individual in any way whatsoever – although, of course, the indiv…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511807947.010

Cites

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • As Loehlin seems to have implied, association between admixture and ability in Scarr et al. sample comported with typical weak form of Spearman's hypothesis in that European ancestry was positively related (r = 0.1) with Raven's Progressive Matrices scores and negatively related (r = -0.12) with a memory measure.

    “As Loehlin [105] seems to have implied, the association between admixture and ability in the Scarr et al. [52] sample comported with the typical weak form of Spearman's hypothesis in that European ancestry was positively related (r = 0.1) with Raven's Progressive Matrices scores and negatively related (r = -0.12)with a memory measure.”

    From Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability (2019) · cites this paper as [105]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loehlin, J. C.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Loehlin, John C.
Venue
Handbook of Intelligence
Published
2000-03-13
Pages
176-194
OpenAlex
W2248442614
Cited by
76
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
20.74
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
Keywords
group differences, individual differences, intelligence, subgroup classification, interindividual variability

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