Cited by 472Cognitive Abilities and TestingRace, Genetics, and SocietyIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 254 of the 257 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability.

Rushton, J. Philippe, Jensen, Arthur R.·2005·Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Abstract

The culture-only (0 % genetic–100 % environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic–50 % environmental) models of the causes of mean Black–White differences in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence: the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables. The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black–White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the discrimination model (i.e., Black–White differences in socially valued outcomes will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model (i.e., Black–White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics). Section 1: Background Throughout the history of psychology, no question has been so persistent or so resistant to resolution as that of the relative roles of nature and nurture in causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability (Degler, 1991;

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235

Cites

254 of 257 references verified0 citation errors · 2 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Bressler, 1968, Sociobiology, biology and ideology., 178
  2. Chakraborty, 1992, Caucasian genes in American Blacks., American Journal of Human Genetics, 50, 145
  3. Crow, 2002, Unequal by nature: A geneticist's perspective on human differences., Daedalus, 131, 81
  4. Darwin, 1859, The origin of species.
  5. Darwin, 1871, The descent of man.
  6. Eyferth, 1961, Leistungen verscheidener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Ham-burg-Wechsler Intelligenztest fur Kinder (HAWIK), Archiv fur die Gesamte Psychologie, 113, 222
  7. Eyferth, 1960, Farbige kinder in Deutschland
  8. Eysenck, 1971, The IQ argument.
  9. Gallon, 1869, Hereditary genius.
  10. Gollfredson, 2000, Pretending lhal intelligence doesn'l mailer., Cerebrum, 2, 75
  11. Ho, 1980, Analysis of brain weight: I and II., Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 104, 635
  12. 10.1037/0012-1649.13.3.184 · DOI
  13. Masters, 1997, Brain biochemistry and social status: The neurotoxity hypothesis., 141
  14. Miele, 1995, For whom the bell curve tolls: An interview with [the author of The Bell Curve] Charles Murray, on IQ, race, class, Gould, Gardner, and the Clintons., Skeptic, 3, 34
  15. 10.1037/0003-066x.52.1.79 · DOI
  16. Nisbett, 1998, Race, genetics, and IQ., 86
  17. Ogbu, 2002, Cultural amplifiers of intelligence: IQ and minority status in cross-cultural perspective., 241
  18. Plomin, 2001, Behavioral genetics
  19. Post, 1982, Populational differences in visual acuity: A review, with speculative notes on selection relaxation., Social Biology, 29, 319
  20. Raven, 1990, Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales-Research supplement: No. 3. American and international norms
  21. 10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.205 · DOI
  22. 10.1037/0003-066x.49.3.215 · DOI
  23. Simmons, 1942, Cranial capacities by both plastic and water techniques with cranial linear measurements of the Reserve Collection: White and Negro., Human Biology, 14, 473
  24. Skuy, 1987, Effectiveness of the Learning Potential Assessment Device with Indian and Colored adolescents in South Africa., International Journal of Special Education, 12, 131
  25. Stringer, 1996, African exodus.
  26. Watson, 1924, Behaviorism.
  27. Zindi, 1994, Differences in performance., The Psychologist, 7, 549

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 472

Metadata

Authors
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Published
2005-06
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
235-294
ISSN
  • 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1528
OpenAlex
W2110295154
Cited by
457
References
255
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 35
FWCI
33.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychology Public Policy and Law (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Keywords
heritability of intelligence, transracial adoption, racial mixing, brain size and intelligence, general intelligence, human origins, nature versus nurture, discrimination model, distributional models, public 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