Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T15:18:04.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem Is in the Definition: g and Intelligence in I–O Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Phillip L. Ackerman  and
Margaret E. Beier
Phillip L. Ackerman*
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Margaret E. Beier
Affiliation:
Rice University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 654 Cherry St., MC 0170, Atlanta, GA 30332-0170
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 149 - 153
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. (1994). Intelligence, attention, and learning: Maximal and typical performance. Detterman, D. K. (Ed.), Current topics in human intelligence; Volume 4: Theories of intelligence (pp. 1–27). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.Google Scholar
Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2007). Further explorations of perceptual speed abilities, in the context of assessment methods, cognitive abilities and individual differences during skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 249–272.Google Scholar
Ackerman, P. L., & Kanfer, R. (1993). Integrating laboratory and field study for improving selection: Development of a battery for predicting air traffic controller success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 413–432.Google Scholar
Anastasi, A. (1983). Evolving trait concepts. American Psychologist, 38, 175–184.Google Scholar
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905/1916). The development of intelligence in children. (Elizabeth S. Kite, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. New York, NY: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar
Flanagan, J. C. (Ed.). (1948). The aviation psychology program in the Army Air Forces (Report No. 1). Army Air Forces aviation psychology program research Report No. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Google Scholar
Fleishman, E. A. (1956). Psychomotor selection tests: Research and application in the U.S. Air Force. Personnel Psychology, 9, 449–467.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P., & Lacey, J. I. (Eds.). (1947). U.S. Army Air Forces aviation psychology program research reports: Printed classification tests. Report No. 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Google Scholar
Humphreys, L. G. (1971). Theory of Intelligence. In Cancro, R. (Ed.), Intelligence: Genetic and environmental influences (pp. 34–42). New York, NY: Grune & Stratton. Google Scholar
Melton, A. W. (Ed.). (1947). Army Air Forces aviation psychology program research reports: Apparatus tests. Report No. 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Google Scholar
Schaie, K. W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood: The Seattle longitudinal study. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., Yusco, K. P., Ryan, R., & Hanges, P. J. (2012). Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a research program on g in I–O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 128–148.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. E. (1904). “General intelligence” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W., & Süß, H.-M. (1999). Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry. In Ackerman, P. L., Kyllonen, P. C., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 77–108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar