Verfasst von: Christian - Alles Evolution | 24. Juni 2011

Unterschiede in der Verteilung der Intelligenz bei Männern und Frauen

Terminator macht auf einige Studien zur Verteilung der Intelligenz innerhalb der Geschlechter aufmerksam:

Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979 Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 5, September-October 2007, Pages 451-456

Ian J. Deary, Paul Irwing, Geoff Der, Timothy C. Bates

Abstract

There is scientific and popular dispute about whether there are sex differences in cognitive abilities and whether they are relevant to the proportions of men and women who attain high-level achievements, such as Nobel Prizes. A recent meta-analysis (Lynn, R., and Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices: a meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481–498.), which suggested that males have higher mean scores on the general factor in intelligence (g), proved especially contentious. Here we use a novel design, comparing 1292 pairs of opposite-sex siblings who participated in the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY1979). The mental test applied was the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), from which the briefer Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores can also be derived. Males have only a marginal advantage in mean levels of g (less than 7% of a standard deviation) from the ASVAB and AFQT, but substantially greater variance. Among the top 2% AFQT scores, there were almost twice as many males as females. These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences in intellectual eminence.

Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 39, Issue 3, August 2005, Pages 497-509

Helmuth Nyborg

Abstract

The question of a sex difference in intelligence has long divided the experts. IQ researchers sum standardized subtest scores to calculate intelligence in general, and find that males outscore females by about 3.8 points, whereas factor analysts derive the g factor scores from intertest-correlations and find no consistent sex differences in general intelligence. The latter finding is puzzling, as males have larger average brains than females, and brain size correlates .30–.45 with g (and IQ). Males thus “ought” to score a higher g than females.

The present study addressed this paradox by testing four hypotheses: (1) Inadequate analyses explain why researchers get inconsistent results, (2) The proper method will identify a male g lead, (3) The larger male brain “explains” the male g lead, (4) The higher male g average and wider distribution transform into an exponentially increased male–female ratio at the high end of the g distribution, and this largely explains male dominance in society.

All four hypotheses obtained support and explain in part why relatively few males dominate the upper strata in all known societies. The confirmation of hypothesis 3 suggests that the brain size—intelligence–dominance link may be partly biological.

Testing the developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence on 12–18 year olds Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2004, Pages 75-82

Roberto Colom, Richard Lynn

Abstract

The consensus view states that there are no sex differences in intelligence. However, Lynn (1994, 1999) has formulated a developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence that challenges that view. The theory states that boys and girls mature at different rates such that the growth of girls accelerates at the age of about 9 years and remains in advance of boys until 14–15 years. At 15–16 years the growth of girls decelerates relative to boys. As boys continue to grow from this age their height and their mean IQs increase relative to those of girls. This paper presents new evidence for the theory from the Spanish standardization sample of the fifth edition of the DAT. 1027 boys and 924 girls between 12 and 18 years were tested. The general trend shows that girls do better at the younger ages and their performance declines relative to boys among older age groups, which supports the developmental theory. The sex difference for the DAT as a whole for 18 year olds is a 4.3 IQ advantage for boys, very close to the advantage that can be predicted from their larger brain size (4.4 IQ points). The profile of sex differences in abilities among the Spanish sample is closely similar to that in the United States and Britain, which is testimony to the robustness of the difference in these different cultures.

Sex differences in brain size, stature and intelligence in children and adolescents: some evidence from Estonia Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 29, Issue 3, 1 September 2000, Pages 555-560

Richard Lynn, Juri Allik, Olev Must

Abstract

Sex differences in brain size and stature decrease from the age of 7 through 13–14 years and increase from the age of 15 through 18 years in Estonia, as they do in the United States. Sex differences in intelligence show a somewhat similar decrease and increase although they do not move precisely in synchrony with the morphological trends. The results are interpreted as suggesting that sex differences in maturation determine the magnitude of sex differences in physical and mental development during childhood and adolescence.

Do sex differences in a faceted model of fluid and crystallized intelligence depend on the method applied? Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 2010, Pages 101-110

Ricarda Steinmayr, André Beauducel, Birgit Spinath

Abstract

Recently, different methodological approaches have been discussed as an explanation for inconsistencies in studies investigating sex differences in different intelligences. The present study investigates sex differences in manifest sum scores, factor score estimates, and latent verbal, numerical, figural intelligence, as well as fluid and crystallized intelligence as measured by the German Intelligence-Structure-Test 2000-R (IST 2000-R; Liepmann, Beauducel, Brocke, & Amthauer, 2007). The not population-representative sample consisted of 977 German 11th and 12th graders enrolled in a “Gymnasium” (551 female; mean age: M = 16.70; SD = 0.65) who completed the IST 2000-R. Sex differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence were not influenced by the method applied with men performing better than women. However, extent and direction of sex differences in verbal, numerical, and figural intelligence differed by the method applied. Whereas there was a male advantage in all three factors measured as manifest sum scores, women performed better in verbal intelligence as measured by factor scores or as latent variables. Effect sizes of sex differences in numerical and figural intelligence were also greatly reduced when applying the latter two methods. Results are discussed with regard to their theoretical and practical implications.

Factor structure and sex differences on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence in China, Japan and United States Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 50, Issue 8, June 2011, Pages 1222-1226

Jianghong Liu, Richard Lynn

Abstract

This study presents data on the factor structure of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) and sex and cultural differences in WPPSI test scores among 5- and 6-year-olds from China, Japan, and the United States. Results show the presence of a verbal and nonverbal factor structure across all three countries. Sex differences on the 10 subtests were generally consistent, with a male advantage on a subtest of spatial abilities (Mazes). Males in the Chinese sample obtained significantly higher Full Scale IQ scores than females and had lower variability in their test scores. These observations were not present in the Japan and United States samples. Mean Full Scale IQ score in the Chinese sample was 104.1, representing a 4-point increase from 1988 to 2004.

A longitudinal study of sex differences in intelligence at ages 7, 11 and 16 years Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 51, Issue 3, August 2011, Pages 321-324

Richard Lynn, Satoshi Kanazawa

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a longitudinal study of sex differences in intelligence as a test of Lynn’s (1994) hypothesis that from the age of 16 years males develop higher average intelligence than females. The results show that at the ages of 7 and 11 years girls have an IQ advantage of approximately 1 IQ point, but at the age of 16 years this changes in the same boys and girls to an IQ advantage of 1.8 IQ points for boys.

Intelligence and neural efficiency: Further evidence of the influence of task content and sex on the brain–IQ relationship Original Research Article

Cognitive Brain Research, Volume 25, Issue 1, September 2005, Pages 217-225

Aljoscha C. Neubauer, Roland H. Grabner, Andreas Fink, Christa Neuper

Abstract

In the field of physiological study of human intelligence, strong evidence of a more efficient operation (i.e., less activation) of the brain in brighter individuals (the neural efficiency hypothesis) can be found. Most studies in this field have used single, homogeneous tasks and have not examined sex differences. In analyzing the extent of Event-related Desynchronization (ERD) in the EEG during the performance of a verbal and a visuo-spatial task, we recently found that males and females display neural efficiency primarily in the domain where they usually perform better (i.e., verbal in females and spatial in males; cf. A.C. Neubauer, A. Fink, D.G. Schrausser, Intelligence and neural efficiency: the influence of task content and sex on brain–IQ relationship. Intelligence, 30 (2002) 515–536). However, this interpretation was complicated by differences in the complexity of the two tasks. By using a verbal (semantic) and a spatial (rotation) task of comparable complexity in this research, we sought to replicate and extend our earlier findings by additionally considering the individual differences in intelligence structure and the topographical distribution over the cortex. Findings were similar to the previous study: Females (n = 35) display neural efficiency (i.e., less brain activation in brighter individuals) primarily during the verbal task, males (n = 31) in the spatial task. However, the strength of this brain activation–IQ relationship varies with the intelligence factor: In males, the highest correlations were observed for spatial IQ, in females for verbal IQ. Furthermore, the sexes displayed topographical differences of neural efficiency patterns.

Sex differences in mental abilities: g masks the dimensions on which they lie Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 23-39

Wendy Johnson, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.

Abstract

Empirical data suggest that there is at most a very small sex difference in general mental ability, but men clearly perform better on visuospatial tasks while women clearly perform better on tests of verbal usage and perceptual speed. In this study, we integrated these overall findings with predictions based on the Verbal–Perceptual–Rotation (VPR) model ([Johnson, W., and Bouchard, T. J. (2005a). Constructive replication of the visual–perceptual–image rotation (VPR) model in Thurstone's (1941) battery of 60 tests of mental ability. Intelligence, 33, 417–430.; Johnson, W., and Bouchard, T. J. (2005b). The structure of human intelligence: It's verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence, 33. 393–416.]) of the structure of mental abilities. We examined the structure of abilities after removing the effects of general intelligence, identifying three underlying dimensions termed rotation–verbal, focus–diffusion, and memory. Substantial sex differences appeared to lie along all three dimensions, with men more likely to be positioned towards the rotation and focus poles of those dimensions, and women displaying generally greater memory. At the level of specific ability tests, there were greater sex differences in residual than full test scores, providing evidence that general intelligence serves as an all-purpose problem solving ability that masks sex differences in more specialized abilities. The residual ability factors we identified showed strong genetic influences comparable to those for full abilities, indicating that the residual abilities have some basis in brain structure and function.

Sex, masculinity—feminity, and intelligence Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 1, Issue 2, April 1977, Pages 218-233

George S. Welsh, Donald H. Baucom

Abstract

Masculine and feminine subgroups of males and females were selected from samples of high school and college students on the basis of composite scores from several M—F scales. They were compared on intelligence as measured by a verbal test, Terman’s Concept Mastery Test, and a nonverbal test, D-48. Results did not support previous findings of sex differences in intelligence but showed that masculine subgroups of both sexes scored higher of the nonverbal test.

Sex differences in mental rotation and spatial visualization ability: Can they be accounted for by differences in working memory capacity? Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 3, May-June 2007, Pages 211-223

Scott Barry Kaufman

Abstract

Sex differences in spatial ability are well documented, but poorly understood. In order to see whether working memory is an important factor in these differences, 50 males and 50 females performed tests of three-dimensional mental rotation and spatial visualization, along with tests of spatial and verbal working memory. Substantial differences were found on all spatial ability and spatial working memory tests (that included both a spatial and verbal processing component). No significant differences were found in spatial short-term memory or verbal working memory. In addition, spatial working memory completely mediated the relationship between sex and spatial ability, but there was also a direct effect of sex on the unique variance in three-dimensional rotation ability, and this effect was not mediated by spatial working memory. Results are discussed in the context of research on working memory and intelligence in general, and sex differences in spatial ability more specifically.

Sex differences on the WISC-R in Mauritius Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 33, Issue 5, September-October 2005, Pages 527-533

Richard Lynn, Adrian Raine, Peter H. Venables, Sarnoff A. Mednick, Paul Irwing

Abstract

Sex differences on the WISC-R (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised) are examined in a sample of 1258 11 year olds in Mauritius. Boys obtained a significantly higher Full Scale IQ by 5.8 IQ points. Boys obtained a higher Performance IQ by 6.5 IQ points and a higher Verbal IQ by 1.0 IQ points. On the subtests, girls obtained a significantly higher mean on Coding while boys obtained significantly higher means on Similarities, Picture Completion, Block Design, Object Assembly and Mazes. There was no significant sex difference on Digit Span. Two methods were adopted for determining whether boys had an advantage on Spearman’s g. First, calculated from the first principal component of a principal components analysis, boys had an advantage on Spearman’s g of 6.15 IQ points. Second, using the method of entering the sex difference on each of the subtests as point-biserial correlations, including these in the full matrix of subtest correlations for factor analysis and examining the factor loading of sex on g produced a correlation between sex and g of .224, the equivalent of a sex difference of 6.9 IQ points. Thus the sex difference on the Full Scale IQ was found to be a good approximate measure of the difference in g. The pattern of sex differences in Mauritius is compared with that in eight other countries and found to be generally similar, although the boys’ advantage is greater in Mauritius than elsewhere. The variance in boys is slightly greater than in girls, but is only significant for Block Design.

Intelligence, sex and psychomotor performance Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 3, Issue 4, 1982, Pages 457-459

Jitendra Mohan, Meena Sehgal, Anuradha Bhandari

Abstract

This experiment investigated the effect of intelligence and sex on two simple psychomotor performance tests—Backward Figure Writing (BFW) and Backward Alphabet Writing (BAW) in 180 high-school students (90 boys and 90 girls). Three levels of intelligence, high, medium and low were taken. Ss being first matched on Extraversion and Neuroticism. Each S worked for 5 min in pre-test period, rested for 1 min and again worked for 2 min in post-rest period. Results indicated that in pre- and post-rest BFW, increase in speed of response was a direct function of increase in intelligence. Similar results were obtained in pre-rest BAW. In post-rest BAW, however, highest performance scores were obtained by the group, average in intelligence, followed by high and low intelligence groups. Sex did not emerge as a significant determiner of performance in BFW. In BAW, means favoured boys in both pre- and post-rest conditions and the F-ratio for sex emerged significant in post-rest BAW only. None of the interactions emerged as significant. The comparison of effects in two independent variables indicated the task-specific nature of various psychomotor tasks.

Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 32, Issue 5, September-October 2004, Pages 481-498

Richard Lynn, Paul Irwing

Abstract

A meta-analysis is presented of 57 studies of sex differences in general population samples on the Standard and Advanced Progressive Matrices (SPM and APM, respectively). Results showed that there is no difference among children aged 6–14 years, but that males obtain higher means from the age of 15 through to old age. Among adults, the male advantage is 0.33d equivalent to 5 IQ points. These results disconfirm the frequent assertion than there are no sex differences on the progressive matrices and support a developmental theory that a male advantage appears from the age of 15 years. A meta-analysis of 15 studies of child samples on the Colored Progressive Matrices showed that among children aged 5–11 years boys have an advantage of 0.21d equivalent to 3.2 IQ points.

Sex differences on three factors identified in Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 32, Issue 4, July-August 2004, Pages 411-424

Richard Lynn, Jüri Allik, Paul Irwing

Abstract

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) was administered to a sample of 2735 12- to 18-year-olds in Estonia. Both a scree test and the consistent Akaike information criterion (CAIC) indicated the presence of three significant factors. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis showed the loadings of the items on the three factors, which were identified as the gestalt continuation found by van der Ven and Ellis [Pers. Individ. Differ. 29 (2000) 45], verbal–analytic reasoning and visuospatial ability. Further analysis of the three factors showed a higher order factor identifiable as g. Examination of age by sex differences showed that on all four factors girls performed better than boys at the age of 12, there was no sex difference at age 14, while boys performed better than girls at the age of 17, although not significantly on visuospatial ability.

Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 17, Issue 2, August 1994, Pages 257-271

Richard Lynn

Abstract

Males have larger brains than females, even when corrected for body size, and brain size is positively correlated with intelligence. This leads to the expectation that males should have higher average levels of intelligence than females. Yet the consensus view is that there is no sex difference in general intelligence. An examination of the literature shows that the consensus view is wrong. Among adults, males have slightly higher verbal and reasoning abilities than females and a more pronounced superiority on spatial abilities. If the three abilities are combined to form general intelligence, the mean for males is 4 IQ points higher than the mean for females. Among children up to the age of around 14 yr the sex differences are smaller because girls mature earlier than boys. The evolutionary selection pressures responsible for greater intelligence in males are discussed.

Sex differences in latent general and broad cognitive abilities for children and youth: Evidence from higher-order MG-MACS and MIMIC models Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 36, Issue 3, May-June 2008, Pages 236-260

Matthew R. Reynolds, Timothy Z. Keith, Kristen P. Ridley, Puja G. Patel

Abstract

Sex differences in the latent general and broad abilities underlying the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children—Second Edition (KABC-II) were investigated for children and youth ages 6 through 18. The data were split into different age groups to account for changes due to differential development. Multi-group higher-order analysis of mean and covariance structures (MG-MACS) and multiple indicator-multiple cause (MIMIC) models were used to analyze these data. Boys consistently demonstrated a significant mean advantage on the latent visual–spatial ability (Gv) factor. A significant mean advantage was also found for boys on the latent crystallized ability (Gc) factor at all ages except for 17 and 18. Girls scored higher on the latent, higher-order g factor, at all ages, although this difference was statistically significant at only two age levels. An additional test, however, did not reveal a significant Age × Sex interaction effect, suggesting only main effects of Sex on Gv, Gc, and g.

Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices are influenced by sex differences on spatial ability Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 37, Issue 6, October 2004, Pages 1289-1293

Roberto Colom, Sergio Escorial, Irene Rebollo

Abstract

The Progressive Matrices Test (PM) is considered an excellent measure of general intelligence or g. There are several studies showing that, on average, males score higher than females on the PM. However, some investigations have demonstrated that there are no sex differences in g. Why are there these contradictory findings? The visuo-spatial format of the PM could be favourable to the male performance, because (on average) males score higher than females on overall spatial ability. The present study administered the Advanced Progressive Matrices Test (APM) and the Spatial Rotation Test from the Primary Mental Abilities Battery (PMA) to a sample of 239 university undergraduates. Males outperformed females on both tests. However, the male advantage on the APM turned out to be non-significant when sex differences on spatial rotation were statistically controlled. It is suggested that sex differences on the PM could be a by-product of its visuo-spatial format.

In a Scottish standardisation sample of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, men have a mean IQ of 105.09 and women of 100.00. The higher average mean obtained by men is consistent with four other standardisation samples of the WAIS and WAIS-R.

Sex differential item functioning in the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices: evidence for bias Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 36, Issue 6, April 2004, Pages 1459-1470

Francisco J. Abad, Roberto Colom, Irene Rebollo, Sergio Escorial

Abstract

There are no sex differences in general intelligence or g. The Progressive Matrices (PM) Test is one of the best estimates of g. Males outperform females in the PM Test. Colom and García-López (2002) demonstrated that the information content has a role in the estimates of sex differences in general intelligence. The PM test is based on abstract figures and males outperform females in spatial tests. The present study administered the Advanced Progressive Matrices Test (APM) to a sample of 1970 applicants to a private University (1069 males and 901 females). It is predicted that there are several items biased against female performance, by virtue of their visuo-spatial nature. A double methodology is used. First, confirmatory factor analysis techniques are used to contrast one and two factor solutions. Second, Differential Item Functioning (DIF) methods are used to investigate sex DIF in the APM. The results show that although there are several biased items, the male advantage still remains. However, the assumptions of the DIF analysis could help to explain the observed results.

Sex differences on the WISC-R in New Zealand Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 39, Issue 1, July 2005, Pages 103-114

Richard Lynn, David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood

Abstract

Sex differences on the WISC-R were examined in a sample of 897 New Zealand children studied at ages 8 and 9 years. Boys scored significantly higher than girls on the subtests of information, vocabulary, block design and object assembly, while girls scored significantly higher on coding. Boys obtained slightly but not significantly higher scores on the verbal, performance and full scale IQs. The results were in general similar to the sex differences in the standardisation samples of the WISC-R in Scotland, the Netherlands and the United States.

Sex ratios in the most-selective elite US undergraduate colleges and universities are consistent with the hypothesis that modern educational systems increasingly select for conscientious personality compared with intelligence

Medical Hypotheses, Volume 73, Issue 2, August 2009, Pages 127-129

Bruce G. Charlton

Abstract

Summary

The main predictors of examination results and educational achievement in modern societies are intelligence (IQ – or general factor ‘g’ intelligence) and the personality trait termed ‘Conscientiousness’ (C). I have previously argued that increased use of continuous assessment (e.g. course work rather than timed and supervised examinations) and increased duration of the educational process implies that modern educational systems have become increasingly selective for the personality trait of Conscientiousness and consequently less selective for IQ. I have tested this prediction (in a preliminary fashion) by looking at the sex ratios in the most selective elite US universities. My two main assumptions are: (1) that a greater proportion of individuals with very high intelligence are men than women, and (2) that women are more conscientious than men. To estimate the proportion of men and women expected at highly-selective schools, I performed demonstration calculations based on three plausible estimates of male and female IQ averages and standard deviations. The expected percentage of men at elite undergraduate colleges (selecting students with IQ above 130 – i.e. in the top 2% of the population) were 66%, 61% and 74%. When these estimates were compared with the sex ratios at 33 elite colleges and universities, only two technical institutes had more than 60% men. Elite US colleges and universities therefore seem to be selecting primarily on the basis of something other than IQ – probably conscientiousness. There is a ‘missing population’ of very high IQ men who are not being admitted to the most selective and prestigious undergraduate schools, probably because their high school educational qualifications and evaluations are too low. This analysis is therefore consistent with the hypothesis that modern educational systems tend to select more strongly for Conscientiousness than for IQ. The implication is that modern undergraduates at the most-selective US schools are not primarily an intelligence elite, as commonly assumed, but instead an elite for Conscientious personality.

Sex differences in g: An analysis of the US standardization sample of the WAIS-III Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 31 May 2011

Paul Irwing

Abstract

This study employed both hierarchical and Bi-factor multi-group confirmatory factor analysis with mean structures (MGCFA) to investigate the question of whether sex differences are present in the US standardization sample of the WAIS-III. The data consisted of age scaled scores from 2450 individuals aged from 16 to 89 years. The findings were more or less uniform across both analyses, showing a sex difference favoring men in g (0.19–0.22d), Information (0.40d), Arithmetic (0.37–0.39d) and Symbol Search (0.40–0.30d), and a sex difference favoring women in Processing Speed (0.72–1.30d).

Sex differences on elementary cognitive tasks despite no differences on the Wonderlic Personnel Test Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 45, Issue 5, October 2008, Pages 429-431

Bryan J. Pesta, Sharon Bertsch, Peter J. Poznanski, William H. Bommer

Abstract

Whether males and females differ in general mental ability (GMA) remains an open question. Complicating the issue is that standardized IQ tests are constructed to minimize sex differences. We propose a potential solution whereby GMA is measured via performance on elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs). ECTs assess basic information-processing ability, yet correlate moderately highly with GMA. Toward this end, we had male (n = 218) and female (n = 226) undergraduates complete the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT), and two ECTs: inspection time (IT) and reaction time (RT). The sex difference on the WPT was non-significant (d = .17), but small differences favoring males existed for IT (d = .34), RT (d = .26), the standard deviation of RT (d = .30), and an ECT factor score (d = .38). Unlike standardized IQ tests, ECTs may be a viable research tool to help clarify and illuminate the nature of sex differences on GMA.

Sex differences on the progressive matrices among adolescents: some data from Estonia Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 36, Issue 6, April 2004, Pages 1249-1255

Richard Lynn, Juri Allik, Helle Pullmann, Kaia Laidra

Abstract

It has long been asserted that there are no sex differences on the Progressive Matrices. Contrary to this position, it has been contended by Lynn (1994, 1998) that there is a small difference favoring females from the age of approximately 9–14 years, and a difference favouring males from the age of 16 onwards, reaching approximately 2.4 IQ points among adults. Data to test these two theories are reported from a standardization of the Progressive Matrices on a sample of 2689 12–18 year olds in Estonia. The results confirm the Lynn theory and show a female advantage of 3.8 IQ points among 12–15 year olds and a male advantage of 1.6 IQ points among 16–18 year olds. Boys had a significantly larger standard deviation than girls. The results provide further confirmation that in early adolescence girls outperform boys on abstract (non-verbal) reasoning ability but that in later adolescence boys outperform girls.

Sex differences on the progressive matrices among 15–16 year olds: some data from South Africa Original Research Article

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 33, Issue 4, September 2002, Pages 669-673

Richard Lynn

Abstract

It has been widely asserted that there is no sex difference in mean scores on the Progressive Matrices. This paper presents an alternative theory that a male advantage on the test begins to appear at the age of 15 years. This alternative theory is supported by data for the largest sample hitherto reported consisting of 3979 15–16 year olds in South Africa. In this sample males obtained a significantly higher mean equivalent to 2.35 IQ points among 15 year olds and to 4.65 IQ points among 16 year olds.

Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 36, Issue 4, March 2004, Pages 779-787

Richard Lynn, Eduardo Backhoff, Luis A. Contreras-Niño

Abstract

Normative data for sex differences on the Standard Progressive Matrices are presented for a sample of nine-hundred and twenty 7–10 year olds in Mexico. Factor analysis of the test showed the presence of factors identifiable as g, reasoning ability and visualisation. There was no statistically significant difference between boys and girls on the test, on g, or on reasoning. There was, however, a significant advantage for boys on the visualisation factor. There was also a non-significant trend for the boys’ advantage on the test to decline over the 4 years and to turn into an advantage for girls at age 10. This is consistent with the faster maturation of girls from the age of about 10 through 15 years.

Sex differences on the Dutch WAIS-III Original Research Article

Intelligence, Volume 34, Issue 3, May-June 2006, Pages 273-289

Sophie van der Sluis, Danielle Posthuma, Conor V. Dolan, Eco J.C. de Geus, Roberto Colom, Dorret I. Boomsma

Abstract

Summarizing, the present study showed that males and females do differ with respect to specific cognitive abilities, but that g cannot be viewed as the sour

Ich eröffne dazu mal einen eigenen Betrag zur Übersichtlichkeit der Disskussion.

About these ads

Responses

  1. @ Christian

    Wie politische Korrektheit zuschlägt, weil Studienergebnisse den McCarthys von links nicht behagen, die ihr Gleichartigkeitsdogma verteidigen, hat z.B. Prof. Nyborg erlebt: Er wurde wegen der hier aufgeführten Studie angefeindet, eine Untersuchungskommission eingesetzt, die die Studie evaluierte und kleinere statistische Bearbeitungsfehler fand.
    Daraufhin wurde Nyborg suspendiert und erst aufgrund einer Solidaritätsaktion internationaler Kollegen wieder eingesetzt, allerdings mit einem schweren Tadel versehen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_Nyborg

    Das war im Jahre 2006.

    So viel zur Freiheit der Wissenschaft im freien Westen.

    Gegenwärtig steht Kanazawa auf der Abschussliste der Political Correctness Crowd.

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=416527

    Jensen, Rushton, Eysenck, Gottfredson und viele andere erleben und erlebten ähnliche Attacken.

    Auch Prof. Rost z.B. könnte davon ein Liedchen singen.
    Bei dem liegt das allerdings schon ein paar Jährchen zurück (in den 80′ern zu Beginn seiner Arbeit).

    Das alles läuft weitgehend außerhalb des Fokus’ unserer Medienlinken, darüber wird kaum berichtet, genausowenig wie über den Stand in der Intelligenzforschung.

  2. Ich habe es hier schon öfter gepostet. Wenn es ohne größere Probleme möglich ist, Intelligenzforschung unter dem Konjunktiv, könnte-später-missbraucht-werden zu behindern, dann wird es auch bald möglich sein, evolutionsbiologische Forschung unter dem Mäntelchen der Diskriminierung gegenüber der Frau einzuschränken.

    Bsp. Die Dekonstruktion naturwissenchaftlicher Objektivierung kann über das von Haraway entwickelte Konzept des “situated knowledge” als feministische Kritik an den Naturwissenschaften erfolgen. Objektivität wird wegdefiniert als in Körpern produziertes, partikulares Wissen. Somit ist die Ausgrenzung, Abwertung der Frau durch die Evolutonstheorie, als patriarchales Manifest einer geschlechtskausalen Machthierarchie einer grundlegenden Kritik auszusetzen umzubewerten, das Weiblich zu re-konstruieren. Wurde aus dem christlichen Gott die Göttin: “Grüß Göttin” waren die Plakate, Schilder in Kiefersfelden an der deutsch-österreichischen Grenze, wird es jetzt die Jägerin der Evolutionstheorie sein. Kultur produziert Natur, Geschichte interpretiert Kultur, interpretierte Kultur IST Natur.

    Ich habe genderistisch argumentiert und bin jetzt stolz auf mich, so einen Tobak verzapft zu haben :))

  3. “Das war im Jahre 2006.”

    Wenn so etwas nicht unter dem Diktum Inquisition von Links zu fassen ist, weiß ich auch nicht – und so etwas im Jahre 2006 A.D. wegen einer respektablen Studie.

    • @ Terminator

      Dreimal darfst Du raten, wieviele Professoren die Finger von respektablen Studien lassen, sie nie erstellen, nicht einmal mehr zu fragen wagen, weil sie ihr ruhiges Forscherleben auch weiterhin genießen wollen.

      Hier ein Aufsatz von Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) über das Klima, das auch Larry Summers zu Fall brachte.

      http://www.bible-researcher.com/murray1.html

  4. Genau das fällt dann ins Wasser, und die weniger extremen und gendergerechten bekommen Auftrieb dadurch. Noch dazu die unwissenschaftliche Kritik, der “Genderwissenschaften” und voila, “terminator bestimmt den Konsens”.

    Dass die Jungendiskriminierung ein wesentlicher Bestandteil sein kann, am großen “Siegeszug” der Mädchen, resp. Frauen, darauf kommen ketcar und die anderen Frauen (bewußt?) nicht. Ist ja gut so im Sinne von Zensursula. Wäre ich Vater, ich wäre dafür, dass mein Kind egal ob w oder m die bestmögliche Ausbildung erhält. Nun kann man sich ausrechnen, wer solche diskriminierenden Vorhaben vorantreibt. Ich sage nur, nicht verheiratet oder lesbisch.

    Wie Charlton oben schreibt:
    “The expected percentage of men at elite undergraduate colleges (selecting students with IQ above 130 – i.e. in the top 2% of the population) were 66%, 61% and 74%. When these estimates were compared with the sex ratios at 33 elite colleges and universities, only two technical institutes had more than 60% men.”

    “This analysis is therefore consistent with the hypothesis that modern educational systems tend to select more strongly for Conscientiousness than for IQ.”

    Oh, welch Wunder. Hätte ich die Zeit, würde ich 100te Studien suchen, wäre natürlich wieder nur “cherry picking” und wer weiß denn schon, was Konsens ist.

  5. @terminator und alexander

    ich gebe euch recht mit eurer kritik.

    das bei fakten frauen-bewegte wie immer schweigen ist auch klar.
    die kann frau nicht mehr weg philosophieren.

    • @ Holger
      Das ist auch mein Eindruck. Dann zieht man sich gekränkt zurück oder fängt mit irgendeinem belanglosen Thema wieder an zu “trollen”.

      Beim nächsten Thema das Gleiche von vorn. Ich bin schon gespannt, wie lange es dauert bis hier überhaupt eine Meldung eintrudelt und auf welchen Teilaspekt sich diese wieder stürzt.

  6. Ich möchte noch einen Essay von Kimura (2007) zum Konsens in den Naturwissenschaften zur Intelligenzforschung anführen. Kimura (http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/) schreibt in “Under-representation or “Misrepresentation”? (http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/articles/Ceci%20Essay.htm) u.a. Folgendes:

    “Research into cognitive sex differences over the past half-century has shown that many human cognitive sex differences are:

    1) significantly influenced by both prenatal and current levels of sex hormones (see Kimura, 2000 for this and following points). Prenatal androgen levels are almost certainly a major factor in the level of adult spatial ability. However, even in adulthood, variations in hormone levels (across the menstrual cycle in women and across seasons and time of day in men) are associated with variations in specific cognitive abilities.

    2) present very early in life, before major differences in life experience (e.g., Levine et al., 1999). Thus not all cognitive sex differences develop gradually through post-elementary school years. Of course, even those that do not appear until after puberty are not necessarily determined solely by experience, but may be influenced by the pubertal alterations in sex hormone levels.

    3) present across cultures that vary in social pressures to conform to a gender norm. This has been documented for both math reasoning and spatial ability (e.g., Geary & DeSoto, 2001)

    4) apparently uninfluenced by systematic training in adulthood. While both sexes benefit by short-term intensive training on spatial tasks, men’s and women’s scores do not converge (Baenninger & Newcombe, 1989).

    5) not radically changed in magnitude over the past three or four decades, a period in which women’s roles and access to higher education have changed substantially (Feingold, 1996; Kimura, 2002b) and

    6) parallel to certain sex differences found in nonhumans where social influences are, either naturally or by virtue of a laboratory environment, absent or minimal. For example, male rats are superior to female rats in learning spatial mazes, and these sex differences can be reversed by hormonal manipulation in early postnatal life (Williams & Meck, 1993).”

    Weiter unten, resümierend:
    “The evidence that women’s lower representation in some fields of science is due to innate talent and interest differences between the sexes is strong.”

    Ich kann dem nichts hinzufügen.

  7. Ein Interview von Rost auf 3Sat:
    http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/mediathek.php?obj=9049&mode=play

  8. Meine Aussage vom 25. Juni 11.14 Uhr hat sich bewahrheitet. Warum wird nicht hier weiterdiskutiert?

    • Unter anderem sicherlich auch, weil die Studien nicht vernünftig aufgearbeitet und der Beitrag zu lang ist. Vielleicht könnt ihr ja die Diskussion aus dem anderen Beitrag hierher verlagern?

  9. Das finde ich nicht. Alle diese Studien stellen den Mainstream klar dar. Kimura fasst dies noch einmal gut zusammen. Diese Feingold-Studie ist mehrfacher Kritik ausgesetzt gewesen – Nick hat dazu gepostet, Alexander Rosling hat dazu gepostet, ich habe dazu in Rekurs auf Wai, Rost gepostet.

    Es gibt für mich keinen Grund anzunehmen, dass die Intelligenzverteilung ab dem zweiten Quartil nicht in einem Verhältnis von 2 zu 1, bis 4 zu 1 zugunsten der Jungen liegt. Es gibt für mich auch keinen Grund anzunehmen, dass es nicht im Schnitt auf die Geschlechter bezogen unterschiedliche Begabungsschwerpunkte gibt. Jungen eher! sachlich-räumlich (Drehungen, 3-Dimensionalität), Mädchen eher sprachlich. Natürlich kommt es zu Überschneidungen, natürlich gibt es hoch- und höchstbegabte Frauen aber eben im Verhältnis weniger als Männer.

    All diese Ergebnisse fügen sich sehr gut in die Annahmen der Evolutionstheorie, der Entwicklungspsychologie (selbst wenn Jungen Puppen zum Spielen bekommen, neigen sie in der Regel dazu, diese zum Kämpfen zu verwenden), der Gehirnforschung, der Medizin, der Biologie.

    Ich weiß ehrlich gesagt überhaupt nicht, wo das Problem liegt und außerdem interessiert es mich nicht, wenn dann die Evidenz eines gesamten Wissenschaftszweiges als “logistisch” oder auch “biologistisch” abgetan wird. Das ist keine Diskurskultur.


Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ photo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

Kategorien

%d Bloggern gefällt das: