IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v78y2020ics0160289619301886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media

Author

Listed:
  • Rindermann, Heiner
  • Becker, David
  • Coyle, Thomas R.

Abstract

Experts (Nmax = 102 answering) on intelligence completed a survey about IQ research, controversies, and the media. The survey was conducted in 2013 and 2014 using the Internet-based Expert Questionnaire on Cognitive Ability (EQCA). In the current study, we examined the background of the experts (e.g., nationality, gender, religion, and political orientation) and their positions on intelligence research, controversial issues, and the media. Most experts were male (83%) and from Western countries (90%). Political affiliations ranged from the left (liberal, 54%) to the right (conservative, 24%), with more extreme responses within the left-liberal spectrum. Experts rated the media and public debates as far below adequate. Experts with a left (liberal, progressive) political orientation were more likely to have positive views of the media (around r = |.30|). In contrast, compared to female and left (liberal) experts, male and right (conservative) experts were more likely to endorse the validity of IQ testing (correlations with gender, politics: r = .55, .41), the g factor theory of intelligence (r = .18, .34), and the impact of genes on US Black-White differences (r = .50, .48). The paper compares the results to those of prior expert surveys and discusses the role of experts' backgrounds, with a focus on political orientation and gender. An underrepresentation of viewpoints associated with experts' background characteristics (i.e., political views, gender) may distort research findings and should be addressed in higher education policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Rindermann, Heiner & Becker, David & Coyle, Thomas R., 2020. "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:78:y:2020:i:c:s0160289619301886
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301886
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shane Greenstein & Feng Zhu, 2012. "Is Wikipedia Biased?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 343-348, May.
    2. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    3. Tim Groseclose & Jeffrey Milyo, 2005. "A Measure of Media Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(4), pages 1191-1237.
    4. Fehr, Ernst & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "The development of egalitarianism, altruism, spite and parochialism in childhood and adolescence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 369-383.
    5. Scharfen, Jana & Peters, Judith Marie & Holling, Heinz, 2018. "Retest effects in cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 44-66.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adrian Furnham, 2023. "Peer nominations as scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1451-1458, February.
    2. Becker, David & Bakhiet, Salaheldin Farah & Alshahomee, Alsedig Abdalgadr & Gadour, Abdelbasit & Elmenfi, Fadil & Essa, Yossry Ahmed Sayed & Dutton, Edward, 2023. "Opinions on intelligence: An Arab perspective," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Wai, Jonathan & Worrell, Frank C., 2021. "The future of intelligence research and gifted education," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2023. "Measuring partisan media bias in US newscasts from 2001 to 2012," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Dewenter, Ralf & Dulleck, Uwe & Thomas, Tobias, 2018. "The political coverage index and its application to government capture," Research Papers 6, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Garz, Marcel & Sood, Gaurav & Stone, Daniel F. & Wallace, Justin, 2020. "The supply of media slant across outlets and demand for slant within outlets: Evidence from US presidential campaign news," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    4. Ralf Dewenter & Uwe Dulleck & Tobias Thomas, 2020. "Does the 4th estate deliver? The Political Coverage Index and its application to media capture," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 292-328, September.
    5. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2020. "Watchdog or loyal servant? Political media bias in US newscasts," DICE Discussion Papers 348, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    6. Shane Greenstein & Feng Zhu, 2016. "Open Content, Linus’ Law, and Neutral Point of View," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 618-635.
    7. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2021. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9033, CESifo.
    8. Simon P. Anderson & John McLaren, 2012. "Media Mergers And Media Bias With Rational Consumers," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 831-859, August.
    9. Angelsen, Arild & Naime, Julia, 2024. "The mixed impacts of peer punishments on common-pool resources: Multi-country experimental evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    10. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    11. Bennani, Hamza, 2018. "Media coverage and ECB policy-making: Evidence from an augmented Taylor rule," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 26-38.
    12. Bruno Michel Roman Pais Seles & Janaina Mascarenhas & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & Adriana Hoffman Trevisan, 2022. "Smoothing the circular economy transition: The role of resources and capabilities enablers," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1814-1837, May.
    13. Fabian Kosse & Thomas Deckers & Pia Pinger & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Armin Falk, 2020. "The Formation of Prosociality: Causal Evidence on the Role of Social Environment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(2), pages 434-467.
    14. Dewenter, Ralf & Dulleck, Uwe & Thomas, Tobias, 2016. "Does the 4th estate deliver? Towards more direct measure of political media bias," Working Paper 175/2016, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
    15. Cristina López-Duarte & Jane F. Maley & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez, 2021. "Main challenges to international student mobility in the European arena," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8957-8980, November.
    16. Redlicki, B., 2017. "Spreading Lies," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1747, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Giovanni Facchini & Anna Maria Mayda & Riccardo Puglisi, 2017. "Illegal immigration and media exposure: evidence on individual attitudes," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-36, December.
    18. de Camargo Fiorini, Paula & Roman Pais Seles, Bruno Michel & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Barberio Mariano, Enzo & de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes, 2018. "Management theory and big data literature: From a review to a research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 112-129.
    19. Benoit Aubert & Jane Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Thierry Warin, 2021. "La détermination des agendas de discussion par les médias sociaux," CIRANO Project Reports 2021rp-12, CIRANO.
    20. Pal Sudeshna, 2011. "Media Freedom and Socio-Political Instability," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:78:y:2020:i:c:s0160289619301886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.