Cited by 64Cognitive Abilities and TestingRace, Genetics, and SocietySocial and Intergroup Psychology

Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence

Hunt, Earl, Carlson, Jerry·2007·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

There are signs that the debate over racial and gender differences in intelligence is about to begin again. In this article we will be concerned primarily with racial differences but will make remarks about gender differences where applicable. Previously there have been bitter arguments over whether or not races exist, over whether it is either important or proper to study racial and gender differences in intelligence, and over the conclusions that have been drawn about environmental and genetic causes as determinants of these differences. We argue that races do, indeed, exist and that studying differences in cognitive competence between groups is a reasonable thing to do. We also point out that past research on both racial and gender differences in intelligence has been marked by methodological errors and overgeneralizations by researchers on all sides of the issue. We propose ten principles of design, analysis, and reporting that ought to be considered carefully when doing or evaluating research in this area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00037.x

Cites

118 of 118 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Ackerman P.L., 2001, The psychology of abilities, competences, and expertise, 1
  2. Carlson J.S, 2000, Dynamic assessment, 681
  3. Fernandez-Ballesteros R. de, 1997, Advances in cognition and educational practice
  4. Fish J.M., 2004, Race and intelligence: Separating science and myth, 113
  5. Lidz C., 2000, Dynamic assessment
  6. Murray C., 2005, Commentary, 120, 13
  7. Ogbu J., 2002, Race and intelligence: Separating science and myth, 241
  8. Regaldo A. (2006, June 16). Scientist's study of brain genes sparks a backlash. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A12.
  9. Steele C.M., 1998, The Black–White test score gap, 401
  10. Sternberg R.J., 2001, Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 7, 137
  11. Sternberg R.J., 2002, Dynamic testing
  12. Van de Vijver F.J.R., 1997, Handbook of cross cultural psychology, 257
  13. Voight B.F., 2006, Public Library of Science: Biology, 4, e72
  14. Wonderlic E.F, 1972, Wonderlic Personnel Test: Negro norms

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hunt, E., & Carlson, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Hunt, Earl
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2007-06
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
194-213
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2093895507
Cited by
64
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
racial differences in intelligence, gender differences in intelligence, research design principles

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