The DOI matches its Crossref record.
What intelligence tests miss: the psychology of rational thought
Abstract
Critics of intelligence tests-writers such as Robert Sternberg, Howard Gardner, and Daniel Goleman-have argued in recent years that these tests neglect important qualities such as emotion, empathy, and interpersonal skills. However, such critiques imply that though intelligence tests may miss certain key noncognitive areas, they encompass most of what is important in the cognitive domain. In this book, Keith E. Stanovich challenges this widely held assumption. Stanovich shows that IQ tests (or their proxies, such as the SAT) are radically incomplete as measures of cognitive functioning. They fail to assess traits that most people associate with good thinking, skills such as judgment and decision making. Such cognitive skills are crucial to real-world behavior, affecting the way we plan, evaluate critical evidence, judge risks and probabilities, and make effective decisions. IQ tests fail to assess these skills of rational thought, even though they are measurable cognitive processes. Rational thought is just as important as intelligence, Stanovich argues, and it should be valued as highly as the abilities currently measured on intelligence tests.
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
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271
Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000968 · Cited by 2,254
Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2247 · Cited by 2,056
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12001 · Cited by 1,381
Beyond Dichotomies: Competence Viewed as a Continuum
Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000194 · Cited by 1,205
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2009-06-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 46-5908-46-5908
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1827980533
- Cited by
- 547
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: What intelligence tests miss: the psychology of rational thought. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.46-5908
- The paper
- What intelligence tests miss: the psychology of rational thought. (2009). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-5908
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.