The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Psychological Bulletin
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 un-known to one another—have been measuring IQ trends from one generation to the next. In this article their results are col-lected and analyzed so as to reap the benefits comparative data usually yield. It is also argued that this mass of data poses fun-damental 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. Data Collection The method used to collect data can be simply put. Question-naires, letters, or personal appeals—usually a combination of all three—were sent to all those researchers known to be inter-ested in IQ trends on the basis of scholarly correspondence and the exchange of publications. One-hundred sixty-five scholars from 35 countries were contacted. They came from Europe—
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641
A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299005400103 · Cited by 5,826
Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006) · The Counseling Psychologist · doi:10.1177/0011000006288127 · Cited by 4,087
The p Factor: One General Psychopathology Factor in the Structure of Psychiatric Disorders?
Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., Meier, M. H., Ramrakha, S., Shalev, I., Poulton, R., et al. (2014) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702613497473 · Cited by 2,449
Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000) · Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355300554926 · Cited by 2,105
Metadata
- Venue
- The American Journal of Psychology
- Publisher
- University of Illinois Press
- Published
- 1904-10
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 592
- ISSN
- 0002-9556 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4206205808
- Cited by
- 4,187
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Psychological Bulletin. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1412635
- The paper
- The Psychological Bulletin. (1904). The American Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412635
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.