CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Brain size does not predict general cognitive ability within families

Open access
Schoenemann, P. Thomas, Budinger, Thomas F., Sarich, Vincent M., Wang, William S.-Y.·2000·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.97.9.4932PMC PMC18335
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hominid brain size increased dramatically in the face of apparently severe associated evolutionary costs. This suggests that increasing brain size must have provided some sort of counterbalancing adaptive benefit. Several recent studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have indicated that a substantial correlation (mean r = approximately 0.4) exists between brain size and general cognitive performance, consistent with the hypothesis that the payoff for increasing brain size was greater general cognitive ability. However, these studies confound between-family environmental influences with direct genetic/biological influences. To address this problem, within-family (WF) sibling differences for several neuroanatomical measures were correlated to WF scores on a diverse battery of cognitive tests in a sample of 36 sibling pairs. WF correlations between neuroanatomy and general cognitive ability were essentially zero, although moderate correlations were found between prefrontal volumes and the Stroop test (known to involve prefrontal cortex). These findings suggest that nongenetic influences play a role in brain volume/cognitive ability associations. Actual direct genetic/biological associations may be quite small, and yet still may be strong enough to account for hominid brain evolution.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.97.9.4932

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is no significant correlation between brain size and general cognitive ability within families.

    “there is no significant correlation between brain size and general cognitive ability within families (Schoenemann et al., 2000)”

    From The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled-up primate brain (2009) · cites this paper as Schoenemann et al., 2000

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. [3]Falk D. Annu Rev Anthropol. 1987;16:13–30. [Google Scholar]
  2. [4]Schoenemann P T. Dissertation. Berkeley: Univ. of California; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  3. [7]Lovejoy C O. In: Primate Functional Morphology and Evolution. Tuttle R H, editor. The Hague: Mouton; 1975. pp. 291–326. [Google Scholar]
  4. [8]Smith B H. Behav Brain Sci. 1990;13:365–366. [Google Scholar]
  5. [9]Willerman L, Schultz R, Rutledge J N, Bigler E D. Intelligence. 1991;15:223–228. [Google Scholar]
  6. [11]Raz N, Torres I J, Spencer W D, Millman D, Baertschi J C, Sarpel G. Intelligence. 1993;17:407–422. [Google Scholar]
  7. [13]Egan V, Chiswick A, Santosh C, Naidu K, Rimmington J E, Best J J K. Personality Individual Differences. 1994;17:357–367. [Google Scholar]
  8. [14]Egan V, Wickett J C, Vernon P A. Personality Individual Differences. 1995;19:113–115. [Google Scholar]
  9. [15]Wickett J C, Vernon P A, Lee D H. Personality Individual Differences. 1994;16:831–838. [Google Scholar]
  10. [16]Wickett J C, Vernon P A, Lee D H. Int J Psychol. 1996;31:238–239. [Google Scholar]
  11. [18]Husén T. Psychological Twin Research. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell; 1959. [Google Scholar]
  12. [19]Jensen A R. Am Educational Res J. 1980;17:153–170. [Google Scholar]
  13. [20]Nagoshi C T, Johnson R C. Social Biol. 1987;34:110–113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. [22]Jensen A R, Johnson F W. Intelligence. 1994;18:309–333. [Google Scholar]
  15. [23]Jensen A R. Personality Individual Differences. 1994;17:597–606. [Google Scholar]
  16. [24]Hoffman E A, Gnanaprakasam D, Gupta K B, Hoford J D, Kugelmass S D, Kulawiec R S. Proc Soc Photo-optical Instrumentation Eng. 1992;1660:694–711. [Google Scholar]
  17. [25]Raven J C. Brit J Psychol. 1948;39:12–19. [Google Scholar]
  18. [29]Heaton R K. A Manual for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Odessa, FL: Psychol. Assessment Resources; 1981. [Google Scholar]
  19. [31]Stroop J R. J Exp Psychol. 1935;18:643–662. [Google Scholar]
  20. [34]Gough H G. Psychol Reports. 1971;28:923–929. [Google Scholar]
  21. [35]Stevens G, Cho J H. Social Sci Res. 1985;14:142–168. [Google Scholar]
  22. [36]Rowe D C, Vazsonyi A T, Flannery D J. Psychol Rev. 1994;101:396–413. [Google Scholar]
  23. [37]Snedecor G W, Cochran W G. Statistical Methods. Ames, IA: Iowa State Univ. Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  24. [38]Jensen A R, Reed T E. Intelligence. 1990;14:375–388. [Google Scholar]
  25. [39]Abacus Concepts. Statview. Berkeley, CA: Abacus Concepts; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  26. [47]Sawaguchi T. Primates. 1990;31:257–272. [Google Scholar]
  27. [48]Dunbar R I M. J Hum Evol. 1995;28:287–296. [Google Scholar]
  28. [54]Lynn R. Personality Individual Differences. 1990;11:273–285. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schoenemann, P. T., Budinger, T. F., Sarich, V. M., & Wang, W. S.-Y.
Affiliations
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
  • Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6398; Center for Functional Imaging, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720; Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; and Department of Electronic Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, and Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
ORCID
Schoenemann, P. Thomas
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2000-04-25
Volume
97
Issue
9
Pages
4932-4937
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.97.9.4932
PMC
PMC18335
OpenAlex
W2112736415
Cited by
91
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
brain size, general intelligence, neuroanatomy, Stroop task, hominid brain evolution, heritability of intelligence, environmental influences on cognition
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Stem, Cerebellum, Cognition, Educational Status, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Nuclear Family, Regression Analysis, Prefrontal Cortex

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