Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T14:52:28.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I–O Psychology and Intelligence: A Starting Point Established

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Paul J. Hanges ,
Charles A. Scherbaum ,
Harold W. Goldstein ,
Rachel Ryan  and
Kenneth P. Yusko
Paul J. Hanges
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Charles A. Scherbaum*
Affiliation:
Baruch College, City University of New York
Harold W. Goldstein
Affiliation:
Baruch College, City University of New York
Rachel Ryan
Affiliation:
Baruch College, City University of New York
Kenneth P. Yusko
Affiliation:
Marymount University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, Baruch College, City University of New York, Box B 8-215, One Bernard Baruch Way, New York, NY 10010
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of our focal article was to initiate a conversation on how I–O psychology can reengage in research on intelligence. We are encouraged by the ways in which the commentators have furthered this conversation. We discuss 4 overarching themes in the set of commentaries: the extent that I–O psychology is contributing to the intelligence field, outsiders' impressions of I–O psychology's contributions to intelligence research, ways I–O psychology can contribute to intelligence research, and ideas about what prevents us from doing this research. We hope this collection of articles serves to truly ignite research by our field on this critical construct.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 189 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2012). The problem is in the definition: g and intelligence in I–O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 149–153.Google Scholar
Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic performance. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 185–202). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar
Brouwers, S. A., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2012). Intelligence 2.0 in I–O psychology: Revival or contextualization? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 158–160.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062–1081.Google Scholar
Chen, J., & Gardner, H. (2005). Assessment based on multiple-intelligence theory. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 77–102). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar
Cucina, J. M., Gast, I. F., & Su, C. (2012). g 2.0: Factor analysis, filed findings, facts, fashionable topics, and future steps. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice., 5, 168–173.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 453–482.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic. Google Scholar
Helms, J. E. (2012). A legacy of eugenics underlies racial-group comparisons in intelligence testing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 178–181.Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., Goebl, A. P., & Culbertson, S. S. (2012). The engine is important, but the driver is essential: The case for executive functioning. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 185–188.Google Scholar
Hunt, E. (2011). Human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Lang, J. W. B., & Bliese, P. D. (2012). I–O psychology and progressive research programs on intelligence. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 161–168.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., & Reeve, C. L. (2012). Where I–O psychology should really (re)start its investigation of intelligence constructs and their measurement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 153–158.Google Scholar
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey, P. & Sluyter, D. (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Much more than g . In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 3–30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1037/a0026699.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L., & Hough, L. (2012). I–O 2.0 from intelligence 1.5: Staying (just) behind the cutting edge of intelligence theories. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 174–177.Google Scholar
Postlethwaite, B. E., Giluk, T. L., & Schmidt, F. L. (2012). I–O psychologists and intelligence research: Active, aware, and applied. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 188–190.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 5, 419–450.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. E. (1927). The abilities of man, their nature and measurement. New York, NY: Macmillan. Google Scholar
Weinhardt, J. M., & Vancouver, J. B. (2012). Intelligent interventions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 181–184.Google Scholar