Journal of Intelligence

572 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Human Capital and Reemployment Success: The Role of Cognitive Abilities and Personality

by Timo Gnambs

J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010009 - 22 Mar 2017

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 8612

Involuntary periods of unemployment represent major negative experiences for many individuals. Therefore, it is important to identify factors determining the speed job seekers are able to find new employment. The present study focused on cognitive and non-cognitive abilities of job seekers that determine [...] Read more.

Involuntary periods of unemployment represent major negative experiences for many individuals. Therefore, it is important to identify factors determining the speed job seekers are able to find new employment. The present study focused on cognitive and non-cognitive abilities of job seekers that determine their reemployment success. A sample of German adults (N = 1366) reported on their employment histories over the course of six years and provided measures on their fluid and crystallized intelligence, mathematical and reading competence, and the Big Five of personality. Proportional hazard regression analyses modeled the conditional probability of finding a new job at a given time dependent on the cognitive and personality scores. The results showed that fluid and crystallized intelligence as well as reading competence increased the probability of reemployment. Moreover, emotionally stable job seekers had higher odds of finding new employment. Other personality traits of the Big Five were less relevant for reemployment success. Finally, crystallized intelligence and emotional stability exhibited unique predictive power after controlling for the other traits and showed incremental effects with regard to age, education, and job type. These findings highlight that stable individual differences have a systematic, albeit rather small, effect on unemployment durations. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence in the Workplace)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

225 KiB

Open AccessArticle

What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?

by Kevin Murphy

J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010008 - 25 Feb 2017

Cited by 13 | Viewed by 9143

Abstract

A series of papers showing that measures of general cognitive ability predicted performance on the job and in training and that measures of specific cognitive abilities rarely made an incremental contribution to prediction led to a premature decline in research on the roles [...] Read more.

A series of papers showing that measures of general cognitive ability predicted performance on the job and in training and that measures of specific cognitive abilities rarely made an incremental contribution to prediction led to a premature decline in research on the roles of specific abilities in the workplace. Lessons learned from this research include the importance of choosing the right general cognitive measures and variables, the relative roles of prediction vs. understanding and the need for a wide range of criteria when evaluating the contribution of specific skills such as complex problem solving. In particular, research published since the “not much more than g” era suggests that distinguishing between fluid and crystallized intelligence is important for understanding the development and the contribution of complex problem solving. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Complex Problem Solving and its Position in the Wider Realm of the Human Intellect)

167 KiB

Open AccessEditorial

Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Journal of Intelligence in 2016

by J. Intell. Editorial Office

J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010007 - 17 Jan 2017

Viewed by 5980

Abstract

The editors of Journal of Intelligence would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for assessing manuscripts in 2016.[...] Full article

239 KiB

Open AccessReply

Sometimes More is Too Much: A Rejoinder to the Commentaries on Greiff et al. (2015)

by Samuel Greiff, Matthias Stadler, Philipp Sonnleitner, Christian Wolff and Romain Martin

J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 6; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010006 - 5 Jan 2017

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 7495

Abstract

In this rejoinder, we respond to two commentaries on the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R. Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures. Intelligence 2015, 50, 100–113. The study was [...] Read more.

In this rejoinder, we respond to two commentaries on the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R. Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures. Intelligence 2015, 50, 100–113. The study was the first to address the important comparison between a classical measure of complex problem solving (CPS) and the more recent multiple complex systems (MCS) approach regarding their validity. In the study, we investigated the relations between one classical microworld as the initially developed method (here, the Tailorshop) with three more recently developed multiple complex systems (MCS; here, MicroDYN, Genetics Lab, and MicroFIN) tests. We found that the MCS tests showed higher levels of convergent validity with each other than with the Tailorshop even after reasoning was controlled for, thus empirically distinguishing between the two approaches. The commentary by Kretzschmar and the commentary by Funke, Fischer, and Holt expressed several concerns with how our study was conducted, our data was analyzed, and our results were interpreted. Whereas we acknowledge and agree with some of the more general statements made in these commentaries, we respectfully disagree with others, or we consider them to be at least partially in contrast with the existing literature and the currently available empirical evidence. Full article

877 KiB

Open AccessCommentary

When Less Is Less: Solving Multiple Simple Problems Is Not Complex Problem Solving—A comment on Greiff et al. (2015)

by Joachim Funke, Andreas Fischer and Daniel V. Holt

J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010005 - 5 Jan 2017

Cited by 16 | Viewed by 8845

Abstract

In this commentary, we critically review the study of Greiff, Stadler, Sonnleitner, Wolff, and Martin, “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures” (Intelligence, 2015, 50, 100–113). The main conclusion of Greiff et al. that the [...] Read more.

In this commentary, we critically review the study of Greiff, Stadler, Sonnleitner, Wolff, and Martin, “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures” (Intelligence, 2015, 50, 100–113). The main conclusion of Greiff et al. that the “multiple complex systems” (MCS) approach to measuring complex problem-solving ability possesses superior validity compared to classical microworld scenarios (“less is more”) seems to be an overgeneralization based on inappropriate analysis and selective interpretation of results. In its original form, MCS is a useful tool for investigating specific aspects of problem solving within dynamic systems. However, its value as an instrument for the assessment of complex problem solving ability remains limited. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

252 KiB

Open AccessCommentary

Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015)

by André Kretzschmar

J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 4; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010004 - 5 Jan 2017

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 7361

Abstract

In this commentary, I discuss some critical issues in the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R., “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures”, Intelligence 2015, 50, 100–113. I conclude that—counter [...] Read more.

In this commentary, I discuss some critical issues in the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R., “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures”, Intelligence 2015, 50, 100–113. I conclude that—counter to the claims made in the original study—the specific study design was not suitable for deriving conclusions about the validity of different complex problem-solving (CPS) measurement approaches. Furthermore, a more elaborate consideration of previous CPS research was found to challenge Greiff et al.’s conclusions even further. Therefore, I argue that researchers should be aware of the differences between several kinds of CPS assessment tools and conceptualizations when the validity of CPS assessment tools is examined in future research. Full article

235 KiB

Open AccessBrief Report

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of WAIS-IV in a Clinical Sample: Examining a Bi-Factor Model

by Rachel Collinson, Stephen Evans, Miranda Wheeler, Don Brechin, Jenna Moffitt, Geoff Hill and Steven Muncer

J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 2; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010002 - 30 Dec 2016

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 17087

Abstract

There have been a number of studies that have examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS-IV) using the standardization sample. In this study, we investigate its factor structure on a clinical neuropsychology sample of mixed aetiology. Correlated factor, [...] Read more.

There have been a number of studies that have examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS-IV) using the standardization sample. In this study, we investigate its factor structure on a clinical neuropsychology sample of mixed aetiology. Correlated factor, higher-order and bi-factor models are all tested. Overall, the results suggest that the WAIS-IV will be suitable for use with this population. Full article

275 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Childhood Cognitive Ability Predicts Adult Financial Well-Being

by Adrian Furnham and Helen Cheng

J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 3; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010003 - 27 Dec 2016

Cited by 20 | Viewed by 10540

Abstract

This study set out to investigate to what extent childhood cognitive ability, along with personality traits, education and occupational status, as well as marital status influence adult financial success. Data were drawn from a large, prospective birth cohort in the UK, the National [...] Read more.

This study set out to investigate to what extent childhood cognitive ability, along with personality traits, education and occupational status, as well as marital status influence adult financial success. Data were drawn from a large, prospective birth cohort in the UK, the National Child Development Study (NCDS). The analytic sample was comprised of 4537 cohort members with data on parental social class (at birth), cognitive ability (at age 11), educational qualifications (at age 33), personality traits (at age 50), current marital status and occupational prestige, and salary/wage earning level (all measured at age 54). Correlational results showed that parental social class, childhood cognitive ability, traits extraversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and openness, being married positively, being divorced or separated negatively, education and occupation as well as gender were all significantly associated with adult earning ability (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). Effect sizes for the relationship between intelligence and income was moderate. Results of a multiple regression analysis showed that childhood cognitive ability, traits conscientiousness and openness, educational qualifications and occupational prestige were significant and independent predictors of adult earning ability accounting for 30% of the total variance. There was also a gender effect on the outcome variable. Numerous limitations are noted. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence in the Workplace)

288 KiB

Open AccessReview

Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact?

by Drew Thomas

J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010001 - 23 Dec 2016

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 32820

Abstract

Some academic publications infer from studies of transracial adoptees’ IQs that East Asian adoptees raised in the West by Whites have higher IQs than Western Whites, and that White adoptees raised by Whites have higher IQs than Black adoptees raised by Whites. Those [...] Read more.

Some academic publications infer from studies of transracial adoptees’ IQs that East Asian adoptees raised in the West by Whites have higher IQs than Western Whites, and that White adoptees raised by Whites have higher IQs than Black adoptees raised by Whites. Those publications suggest that this is because genetic differences give East Asians a higher mean IQ than Whites, and Whites a higher mean IQ than Blacks. This paper proposes a parsimonious alternative explanation: the apparent IQ advantage of East Asian adoptees is an artifact caused by ignoring the Flynn effect and adoption’s beneficial effect on IQ, and most of the IQ disadvantage of Black adoptees disappears when one allows for attrition in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, and acknowledges the results of other studies. Diagnosing these artifacts suggests a nil hypothesis: East Asian, White, and Black adoptees raised in the same environment would have similar IQs, hinting at a minimal role for genes in racial IQ differences. Full article

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

J. Intell., Volume 5, Issue 1 (March 2017) – 9 articles

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI