The Intercohort Decline in Verbal Ability: Does It Exist?
Abstract
Has there been a long-term intercohort decline in verbal ability beginning in the early part of this century? Recent analyses by Alwin and Glenn using data from the General Social Survey (GSS) strongly support such a trend. This decline, however, is not consistent with a substantial literature on adult cognitive development. We argue that Alwin's and Glenn's analyses confuse cohort effects with aging effects, apparently because of (1) a reliance on outdated assumptions, or “side information,” regarding the relationship between age and verbal ability; (2) the treatment of the relationship between age and verbal ability as linear rather than curvilinear; and (3) the high degree of collinearity between age and cohort in the GSS data. The observed trend in the GSS data appears to be explained best by a positive relationship between age and verbal ability rather than by a decline in ability across cohorts. Because the GSS data involve a set of national probability samples conducted over a 22–year period, our analyses complement and strengthen the credibility of the literature on adult cognitive development.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The negative cohort effects on verbal ability reported by Alwin may be due to confusing cohort effects with aging, treating the relationship between age and verbal ability as linear rather than curvilinear.
“The negative cohort effects on verbal ability reported by Alwin (1991) may be due to confusing cohort effects with aging, treating the relationship between age and verbal ability as linear rather than curvilinear (Wilson & Gove, 1999).”
From An Historical Framework for Cohort Differences in Intelligence (2005) · cites this paper as Wilson & Gove, 1999
Direct comparison of different cohorts at one point in time confounds cohort with age effects, whereas comparison of cohorts at the same age but different points in time confounds cohort and period effects.
“That is, the direct comparison of different cohorts at one point in time confounds cohort with age effects, whereas comparison of cohorts at the same age but different points in time confound cohort and period effects (cf. Ryder, 1965; Schaie, 1965; Wilson & Gove, 1999).”
From An Historical Framework for Cohort Differences in Intelligence (2005) · cites this paper as Wilson & Gove, 1999
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An Historical Framework for Cohort Differences in Intelligence
Schaie, K. W., Willis, S. L., & Pennak, S. (2005) · Research in Human Development · doi:10.1080/15427609.2005.9683344 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wilson, J. A., & Gove, W. R.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-04
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 253-266
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2313766163
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Sociological Review (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 › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Keywords
- verbal ability, adult cognitive development, cohort effects, age-related changes, General Social Survey
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