TABLE 4.1 Author Ratings

Author Mean Respect Rating“ % Responding

Anne Anastasi 5.8 78.2 ( LI ) 6 Cyril Burt 2.43 72.3 (1.61) Raymond Cattell 5.14 81.7 (1.33) Lee Cronbach 5.89 82.6 ( LI ) Hans Eysenck 4.33 68.4 (1.56) Stephen J. Gould 4.45 35.7 (1.73) J. P. Guilford 5.55 82.6 (1.18) Richard Herrnstein 4.14 44.6 (1.71) Lloyd Humphreys 5.17 42.5 (1.29) A rthur Jensen 3.68 87.1 (1.83) Leon Kamin _{4.36 39.6} (1.61) Robert L. Thorndike 5.57 83.6 (1.21) Philip Vernon 5.21 37.8 (1.18) David Wechsler 5.72 86.7 (1.16)

a| ~ “Wry low regard," 7 — “Very high regard.” bNumbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

T h e low er ratin g s for th e p u b lic figures m ay be a ttr ib u te d to a g en eral d istaste for p o p u la riz a tio n a n d p u b lic c o n tro v e rsy a m o n g th e e x p e rt p o p u ­ la tio n . T h e differen ce b etw een th e p r o - a n d a n ti- te s tin g sc ien tists is n o t so easily ex p la in e d . F o r o n e th in g , th e m o re highly ra te d n o n c o n tro v e rs ia l a u th o rs are all a c c u ra te ly c h a ra c te riz e d as p ro -te s tin g . M oreover, re s p o n d ­ e n ts te n d to agree w ith E ysenck, H e rrn s te in , a n d J e n s e n o n th e g ro u p difference issues (b elief in a g en e tic in flu e n ce o n b o th race a n d SES d if­ ferences in IQ are significantly p ositively c o rre la te d w ith ratin g s fo r these au th o rs). T h e a b u n d a n c e o f very low ra tin g s for th o se w h o p u b lic ly p o s tu ­ late g en e tic in flu e n ces o n g ro u p d ifferences th u s seem s to reflect th e view s

Race and Class Differences in IQ 133

o f b o th th o se w ho disagree w ith th e se p o sitio n s a n d th o se w ho m ay agree b u t b elieve c e rta in th in g s are b e tte r left u n sa id , a t least publicly.

B oth th e m e a n a n d v a ria n c e o f ratin g s fo r co n tro v e rsial a u th o rs in d ic a te th a t these ratin g s are rela ted to facto rs o th e r th a n th e c o n te n t o f th e a u ­ th o rs’ w ork. O u r h y p o th e sis is th a t e x p e rt o p in io n s o n all th e q u e s tio n s c o n c e rn in g g ro u p differences are rela ted to th e p o litical p ersp e ctiv e o f th e re sp o n d e n ts. T h e d ile m m a (d isju n c tio n o f realm s) betw een th e d a ta on g ro u p differences a n d p o litica l b e lie f faced by a liberal p sychologist m u s t be g re a te r th a n th a t faced by a co n serv ativ e, w ho m ig h t be m o re in c lin e d to value efficiency o ver eq u a lity o f o u tc o m e .

P olitical p ersp ectiv e was assessed in tw o ways. F irst, re s p o n d e n ts sta te d th e ir a g re e m e n t o r d isa g re e m e n t w ith a series o f six p o litica l sta te m e n ts. T h e s ta te m e n ts d e a lin g w ith U .S. e c o n o m ic e x p lo ita tio n , th e fairn ess o f th e p riv a te e n te rp rise system , affirm ativ e a c tio n , th e d esira b ility o f socialism , a lie n a tio n ca u se d by th e s tru c tu re o f society, a n d th e p ro p rie ty o f e x tra ­ m a rita l sexual re la tio n s. R e sp o n se s to th e se s ta te m e n ts w ere d iscovered, in a p re v io u s in v e stig a tio n in c o rp o ra tin g m a n y m o re su ch s ta te m e n ts , to load highly o n a fa c to r re p re se n tin g overall p o litica l p ersp e ctiv e.60 A g re em en t w as assessed on a 4 - p o in t scale, w here 1 w as “ S trongly ag ree” a n d 4 was “ S tro n g ly disagree.” F o r fo u r o f th e six s ta te m e n ts , th e m e a n resp o n se is a p p ro x im a te ly a t ind ifferen ce. R e sp o n d e n ts are so m e w h a t m o re likely to disagree th a t “ T h e U n ite d S tates w ould be b e tte r o ff if it m o v ed to w ard so c ia lism ” a n d th a t “ T h e s tru c tu re o f o u r society causes m o st peo p le to feel a lie n a te d .” T h e se co n d m e a su re o f p o litical p ersp ectiv e ask ed e x p e rts to in d ic a te th e ir global p o litica l p ersp ectiv e on a 7 - p o in t scale, w here 1 w as “ Very lib e ra l” a n d 7 was “ Very co n serv ativ e." M e an se lf-a sse ss m e n t o n th is scale is 3.19 (s.d. = 1.28, r.r. = 95.6%), p u ttin g th is e x p e rt p o p u la tio n slightly to th e left o f center.

F a c to r an a ly sis o f resp o n ses to th e six s ta te m e n ts a n d th e global ra tin g reveal th a t all q u e s tio n s, w ith th e e x c ep tio n o f th e sta te m e n t a b o u t e x tra ­ m a rita l affairs, load highly on a single fa c to r (i.e., are highly co rrela te d ). T h e five s ta te m e n ts a n d th e global ra tin g w ere th e re fo re n o rm a liz e d a n d c o m b in e d to fo rm a p o litical p ersp e ctiv e su p e rv a riab le . It is th is variab le th a t is used as a m e asu re o f overall p o litica l p ersp e ctiv e. N o te th a t th e liberal p o sitio n o n th e five in c lu d e d s ta te m e n ts (e.g., b e lie f in socialism , a ffirm ativ e a c tio n , e c o n o m ic e x p lo ita tio n ) c a n all be c h a ra c te riz e d as p la c ­ ing a h ig h e r value o n eq u a lity o f o u tc o m e th a n on e c o n o m ic efficiency.

T h e nex t c h a p te r c o n ta in s a d e ta ile d d isc u ssio n o f th e re la tio n sh ip b e­ tw een p o litical p ersp ectiv e a n d o th e r d e m o g ra p h ic a n d b ac k g ro u n d v a ria ­ bles, a n d su b sta n tiv e q u e s tio n resp o n d in g . It is w o rth n o tin g here th a t p o litical p ersp ectiv e is not significantly rela ted to resp o n ses to m o st su b ­

134 The IQ Controversy

s ta n tiv e q u e s tio n s. T h e e x c e p tio n s in c lu d e a h a n d fu l o f q u e s tio n s o n th e n a tu re o f in te llig en c e a n d h eritability, as well as several q u e s tio n s o n test use a n d m isuse (d iscussed in th e next c h a p te r), a n d a ll o f th e q u e s tio n s d e a lin g w ith g ro u p d ifferences d iscu ssed in th is ch a p te r. F o r every so u rce o f bias e x a m in e d (q u e stio n s 1 2 -16), th e re is a sig n ifican t p o sitiv e c o rre la tio n betw een lib e ralism a n d a m o u n t o f bias a ttr ib u te d to tests, a re su lt th a t m a k e s th e d isc re p a n c y b etw een th e bias ratin g s a n d o u r review o f th e em p iric a l lite ra tu re m o re u n d e rsta n d a b le . C o n serv ativ es are significantly m o re likely th a n liberals to b elieve th a t genes play a ca u sa l role in rac e a n d class d ifferences in IQ, a n d ra te B u rt, E ysenck, H e r rn s te in , a n d Je n se n higher. L iberals, o n th e o th e r h a n d , are m o re fav orably d isp o sed to G o u ld a n d K a m in th a n are con serv ativ es.

G ro u p d ifferences in IQ are th e d riv in g force b e h in d th e IQ c o n tro v e rsy a n d re m a in its m o st sen sitiv e to p ic. T h o se w ho a tta c k te sts u su a lly begin w ith th is issue; th o se w ho d efe n d th e m u su a lly shy away fro m it. E x p e rts surveyed in d ic a te th a t th e re is so m e b ias in in te llig en c e a n d a p titu d e tests, b u t th a t it is in sufficient to a c c o u n t fo r th e to ta lity o f g ro u p d ifferences in te st score. M o st re s p o n d e n ts are o f th e o p in io n th a t g en e tic facto rs as well as e n v iro n m e n ta l d ifferences c o n trib u te to th e b la c k - w h ite a n d SES d if­ fere n tia ls in IQ. T h ese d a ta are n o t, how ever, an a c c u ra te re p re s e n ta tio n o f th e coldly ra tio n a l scientific view. T h e U n ite d S tate s h as suffered th ro u g h a long a n d ugly h isto ry o f ra c ism , a n d th e p ast th ir ty years h as seen th e rise o f a new e g a lita ria n ethic. In its w ake, th e re are c e rta in to p ic s th a t m a n y sc ien tists are u n w illin g to discu ss publicly, a n d a b o u t w h ich th e y c a n n o t be to ta lly objective.

N otes

1. Lee W illerman, The Psychology o f Individual and Group Differences (San Fran­ cisco: W. H. Freeman, 1979), pp. 465-474.

2. Eleanor Emmons Maccoby and Carol Nagy Jacklin, The Psychology o f S ex

Differences (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), pp. 63—133; A rthur R.

Jensen, Bias in M ental Testing (New York: Free Press, 1980), pp. 622-628. 3. A rthur R. Jensen, “The Race X Sex X Ability Interaction,” in Intelligence:

Genetic and Environmental Influences, ed. R. Cancro (New York: G rune and

Stratton, 1971), p. 136.

4. Audrey M. Shuey, The Testing o f Negro Intelligence 2nd ed. (New York: Social Science Press, 1966); R. Travis Osborne and Frank C. J. McGurk, The Testing

o f Negro Intelligence, Vol. 2 (Athens, GA: The Foundation for H um an Under­

standing, 1982).

5. John C. Loehlin, G ardner Lindzey, and J. N. Spuhler, Race Differences in

Intelligence (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975), p. 235.

6. Ibid.; A rthur R. Jensen, “The N ature o f the Black-W hite Difference on Various Psychometric Tests: Spearm an’s Hypothesis,” The Behavioral and Brain Sci­

Race and Class Differences in IQ 135

7. Loehlin et al.. p. 235.

8. Christopher Jencks et al.. Inequality (New York: Basic Books, 1972). p. 144; Christopher Jencks et al.. Who Gets Ahead? (New York: Basic Books. 1979), p.

1 2 1

.

9. Jenson. Bias, p. 44. 10. Ibid.

11. Ibid., p. 43. 12. Ibid.. p. 635.

13. Ibid.. pp. 570-571; Anne Anastasi, Psychological Testing, 5th ed. (New York: Macmillan. 1982). pp. 284-285.

14. J. H. Court. Researchers' Bibliography fo r R aven’s Progressive Matrices and

M ill H ill Vocabulary Scales, 3d ed. (Adelaide, Australia: Flinders University,

1976).

15. Jensen. Bias, p. 704.

16. Langdon E. Longstreth. "Jensen’s Reaction Time Investigations o f Intelligence: A Critique,” Intelligence 8 (A pril-June 1984): 139-160.

17. Jensen. Bias, pp. 635-714.

18. Philip Vernon. Intelligence: Heredity and Environment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1979). p. 310.

19. So too can a test be highly culture specific and invalid. Psychologist Robert Williams has developed a test he calls the BITCH (Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity), designed to be a culture-specific test on which blacks outperform whites. See Robert L. Williams, The B IT C H Test (St. Louis, MO: Black Studies Program. Washington University, 1972). Dr. Williams accom­ plished his objective; the test consists entirely of vocabulary questions con­ cerning black slang. U nfortunately, perform ance on the test has not been dem onstrated to correlate significantly with any other criterion o f intelligence. See Jensen. Bias, pp. 679-681.

20. Adapted from Ronald L. Flaugher, “The Many Definitions of Test Bias," Amer­

ican Psychologist 33 (July 1978):671—679.

21. Jensen. Bias, pp. 552-580.

22. Vernon, p. 265; but see Jensen, Bias, pp. 530-533.

23. F. Miele. “Cultural Bias in the W1SC," Intelligence 3 (1979): 149-164.

24. Frank C. J. McGurk, “ Race Differences— Twenty Years Later,” H om o 26 (1975):219-239.

25. Jensen. Bias, pp. 533-552.

26. Ibid., pp. 465-516; Robert Linn. “Ability Testing: Individual Differences, Pre­ diction and Differential Prediction,” in Ability Testing: Uses, Consequences,

and Controversies, part II, eds. Alexandra K. Wigdor and Wendell R. G arner

(W ashington. DC: N ational Academy Press, 1982), pp. 335-388; John E. Hunter, Frank L. Schmidt, and Ronda Hunter, “ Differential Validity o f Em­ ployment Tests bv Race: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis,” Psychologi­

cal Bulletin 86 ( 1979):721-735.

27. John E. H unter and Frank L. Schmidt, “A Critical Analysis of the Statistical and Ethical Implications of Five Definitions of Test Fairness,” Psychological

Bulletin 83 (1976): 1053-1071.

28. Jensen, Bias, pp. 596-603.

29. N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin, “ IQ, Heritability, and Inequality,” in The IQ

Controversy, eds. N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin (New York: Pantheon Books,

136 The IQ Controversy

30. Jeff Howard and Ray H am m ond, “ Rum ors o f Inferiority,” New Republic 3686 (September 9, 1985): 17-21.