CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,967Cognitive Abilities and TestingIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.

Flynn, James R.·1987·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Data from 14 nations reveal IQ gains ranging from 5 to 25 points in a single generation. Some of the largest gains occur on culturally reduced tests and tests of fluid intelligence. The Norwegian data show that a nation can make significant gains on a culturally reduced test while suffering losses on other tests. The Dutch data prove the existence of unknown environmental factors so potent that they account for 15 of the 20 points gained. The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence. This hypothesis can also explain differential trends on various mental tests, such as the combination of IQ gains and Scholastic Aptitude Test losses in the United States. Over the last decade, scholars in many countries—largely unknown to one another—have been measuring IQ trends from one generation to the next. In this article their results are collected and analyzed so as to reap the benefits comparative data usually yield. It is also argued that this mass of data poses fundamental problems for developmental psychology, primarily concerning what factors have the most potent effect on IQ, what IQ tests measure, and how IQ tests should be used in making between-groups comparisons.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,901–1,967 of 1,967

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Flynn, J. R.
Affiliations
University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Flynn, James R.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1987-03
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
171-191
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171
OpenAlex
W2063679076
Cited by
1,918
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 84 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 77
FWCI
38.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2008-09-26)
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
IQ gains, fluid intelligence, intelligence testing, Scholastic Aptitude Test, developmental psychology

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