JOURNAL OF BLACK PSYCHOLOGY / MAY 2001

Onwuegbuzie, Daley / RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN IQ

INTELLIGENCE TESTING AND RACE

Racial Differences in IQ Revisited:

A Synthesis of Nearly a Century of Research

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
Valdosta State University
Christine E. Daley
Muscogee County School District

This article presents a synthesis of arguments disputing the existence of racial-

ethnic differences in mental ability, and it challenges the classicist model of “in-
telligence” on which hereditarian assumptions of racial disparity are based. A
review of the literature reveals the following eight major premises held by sup-
porters of this perspective: (a) intelligence is unidimensional and can be repre-
sented by a single factor, g; (b) intelligence is fixed within individuals and across
generations; (c) IQ tests accurately measure this fixed ability; (d) IQ tests are
equally valid across racial, ethnic, and cultural groups; (e) intelligence deter-
mines individuals’ professional and social standings; (f) environment plays little
role in determining an individual’s intelligence; (g) the intelligence of popula-
tions is deteriorating over time; and (h) scores on IQ tests are consistent with
classical statistical and measurement theory. Each premise is refuted on the basis
of historical, sociological, psychological, and statistical evidence.

Most researchers and educators in the United States acknowledge the

existence of racial differences on measures of intelligence quotient, more
commonly known as IQ. The rank order of performance historically has been
Asian American, Caucasian American, Hispanic American, and African
American. Specifically, Asian Americans tend to score on average

AUTHORS’ NOTE: A longer version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the
European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Lahti, Finland, September 24, 1999.
Correspondence should be addressed to Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Department of Educational
Leadership, College of Education, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA 31698; e-mail:
tonwuegb@ valdosta.edu.
JOURNAL OF BLACK PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 27 No. 2, May 2001 209-220
© 2001 The Association of Black Psychologists
209

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

210 JOURNAL OF BLACK PSYCHOLOGY / MAY 2001

approximately 3 points higher than Caucasian Americans, Caucasian Ameri-

cans tend to score approximately 15 points higher than African Americans,
and Hispanic Americans tend to fall somewhere in between Caucasian
Americans and African Americans. There is little doubt that the difference
that has fueled the most controversy has been between Caucasian Americans
and African Americans. This difference of 1 standard deviation was reported
in 1932 in the United States when the first Stanford-Binet IQ test was
normed, and even as early as World War I when the Army Alpha tests were
administered to recruits (Loehlin, Lindzey, & Spuhler, 1975). Although few
contest that racial and ethnic differences in IQ scores have existed throughout
the past century, there remains controversy as to how these findings should be
interpreted. Simply put, although researchers, educators, psychologists, and
others acknowledge the statistical significance of these differences (in partic-
ular between Caucasian Americans and African Americans), there is consid-
erable disagreement regarding their practical significance.
Over the years, the arguments have centered on the relative contributions
of heredity and environment in explaining differences in IQ. An extensive re-
view of the literature revealed that proponents (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray,
1994) of the hereditarian or classicist theory of intelligence subscribe to the
following eight premises:

1. Intelligence is unidimensional and structural, with a dominant factor, g, repre-

senting some core human mental ability.
2. Intelligence is fixed within individuals and across generations.
3. IQ tests accurately measure this fixed core mental ability.
4. IQ tests are equally valid across racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.
5. Intelligence determines individuals’ professional and social standings.
6. The environment plays little or no role in determining individuals’ levels of in-
telligence.
7. The intelligence of populations is deteriorating over time.
8. Scores on IQ tests are consistent with classical statistical and measurement
theory.

Each of these premises, in turn, can be refuted on the basis of historical,

sociological, psychological, and statistical evidence.

Premise 1. There is considerable debate in the scientific community

regarding the existence and importance of g, a factor that has been identified
as a general index of mental ability or intelligence. Simply put, factors that
emerge as a result of complex factor analytical techniques are by themselves
neither entities nor causes but mathematical abstractions that could merely be
the result of chance.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

 Onwuegbuzie, Daley / RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN IQ 211

Indeed, factors represent only one of numerous possible ways to position

axes within a set of vectors. Thus, g is just one of the many mathematical solu-
tions involving measures of intelligence that may exist. In fact, L. L. Thurstone,
an American psychologist, demonstrated in the late 1930s that by changing
the type of factor rotation, g disappears (Thurstone, 1938). Moreover,
throughout the years, psychologists have identified a number of factors or
dimensions of intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1983; Guilford, 1956; Sternberg,
1988; Thurstone, 1946, 1947). Thus, as noted by Gould (1981), hereditarians
are guilty of reification, that is, assuming that every mathematical abstraction
represents a tangible reality.

Premise 2. Hereditarians argue that intelligence is fixed within individuals

and across generations (i.e., it is determined primarily by genetic factors).
One area of confusion here involves the misunderstanding of the difference
between within-group and between-group heritability. As noted by Gould
(1981), studies of heritability that use such techniques as comparing the IQ of
twins raised apart lead to within-group heritability estimates. This is because
they lead to approximations within a single, intact population (e.g., Cauca-
sian Americans). Unfortunately, hereditarians assume that if heredity explains
a certain proportion of the within-group variation, it must also explain a simi-
lar proportion of the difference in IQ levels between groups (e.g., African
Americans vs. Caucasian Americans). Yet, within-group variation and between-
group variation are two separate phenomena, and knowledge of one does not
allow inferences to be made about the other. Furthermore, it is very difficult
to argue that IQ tests measure mental ability that is fixed across generations in
light of evidence that performance on a wide range of tests of intelligence has
been increasing by approximately 3 IQ points per decade since the first IQ
tests were administered (Neisser, 1998), a phenomenon referred to as the
Flynn effect.

Premise 3. According to hereditarians, standard IQ tests provide adequate

measures of intelligence for all individuals. Yet, even Alfred Binet (Binet &
Simon, 1905), who devised the first IQ test in 1905, declared that intelligence
is too complex to summarize with a single number and warned of the “brutal
pessimism” that would ensue if IQ tests ever were mistaken as a measure of
fixed and immutable intelligence. One look at the Wechsler intelligence
scales (Wechsler, 1991, 1997), which perhaps are the most commonly used
IQ measures in American clinical and educational settings today, leads one to
question the relevance of their seemingly arbitrary and circumscribed items.
This is particularly true when one considers that Wechsler (1958) himself has

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

212 JOURNAL OF BLACK PSYCHOLOGY / MAY 2001

defined intelligence—that which his tests purport to measure—as “the aggre-

gate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think ratio-
nally, and to deal effectively with the environment” (p. 7).

Premise 4. Hereditarians would have us believe that traditional IQ tests are

equally valid across racial, ethnic, and cultural lines. According to Greenfield
(1998), however, intelligence is the ability to acquire competence through
learning, socialization, and development in each of the following: (a) tech-
nology, (b) linguistic communication, and (c) social organization, facets that
vary from culture to culture. Thus, by Greenfield’s definition, intelligence
varies from culture to culture. In other words, cultures define intelligence by
what is adaptive in their particular social and cultural milieu. In addition,
intelligence is as reflective of cultural ideals as it is of scientific hypotheses
(Greenfield, 1998).
For instance, researchers found that in Africa in the 1970s, more emphasis
was placed on social (as opposed to technological) intelligence, on compliant
and respectful behavior, and on deliberation (Mundy-Castle, 1974; Wober,
1974, 1975). These values are at odds with those measured by IQ tests, where
technological savvy, individuality, and speed are more important assets.
Therefore, it would be extremely misleading, to say the least, to state that racial
and cultural differences in IQ scores represent differences in intelligence.

Premise 5. Those who subscribe to the classicist view of intelligence

would argue that intelligence determines one’s professional and social stand-
ing. Nevertheless, this inference can be challenged on a number of fronts. For
example, the fact that women earn statistically significantly lower incomes
than do men (Hacker, 1992) despite being equal with respect to IQ helps to
disprove the hereditarian claim that IQ is a major determinant of future
income and wealth.
Furthermore, even Herrnstein and Murray (1994) admit that whether a
person has a high school diploma is a better predictor of welfare dependency
“over and above the effects of either cognitive ability or socioeconomic back-
ground” (p. 704).

Premise 6. In asserting that environment at best plays a minimal role in

determining levels of intelligence, hereditarians assume that there is no inter-
action between genetic and nongenetic (i.e., environmental) components.
Yet, it is difficult to imagine examples of phenomena that are affected inde-
pendently by genetic and nongenetic elements. Human weight is one of the
millions of constructs that is determined by both genetic and nongenetic
components in an intricate manner. For instance, on a given diet, one person

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

 Onwuegbuzie, Daley / RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN IQ 213

may gain weight whereas another may lose weight (Layzer, 1995). It is
equally difficult to imagine how intelligence can be determined solely by
genetic influences. Surely, one could not learn any cognitive skill, such as
learning a native or foreign language, without environmental support. Indeed,
the most ardent classicists contend that heritability for intelligence lies
between .40 and .80 (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). Assuming this range is
accurate, that leaves between 20% and 60% of cognitive ability to be
explained by other factors, presumably environmental.

Premise 7. The hereditarian concern about dysgenic trends stems from

their belief in an inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility and
from their belief in the heritability of IQ (Lynn, 1998). Yet, as noted by
Waldman (1998), this is a rather simplistic framework.
According to Waldman (1998), dysgenic trends refer to the “decrease in
the alleles predisposing to lower IQ in a population from one generation to
succeeding generations” (p. 367). Moreover, Waldman noted that studies that
have led to the inference of differences in fertility as a function of IQ have
been flawed by small sample sizes, use of group-level rather than individ-
ual-level units of analyses, the incorrect use of dysgenic ratios to compute the
IQ-fertility relationship, and the dynamic nature of this association over time.
Also, investigations in which inferences of genetic influences on intelli-
gence prevail have been flawed by an overestimation of the heritability of
intelligence, a failure to distinguish between additive and nonadditive genetic
influences, a failure to acknowledge the dynamic nature of heritability and
assortive mating for intelligence over time, and a misunderstanding of the
implications of assortive mating.

Premise 8. Finally, the hereditarian perspective suggests that scores on IQ

tests are consistent with classical statistical and measurement theory. How-
ever, despite the fact that IQ test constructors attempt to develop forms that
yield scores that are normally distributed, many of these tests fall well short
of this goal. For example, the Army Alpha tests tended to yield scores that
were bimodal, with one peak at zero and another close to the middle, rather
than being normally distributed (Gould, 1981). In fact, only two of Yerkes’s
(1921) tests generated a distribution even close to normality. Even the Armed
Forces Qualification Test, a measure of IQ that Herrnstein and Murray (1994)
claim to be “one of the most highly g-loaded mental tests in current use”
(p. 590), is, by their own admission, skewed.
Similarly, the developers of the Raven’s progressive matrices test (J. Raven,
1981; J. Raven & Court, 1989; J. Raven, J. C. Raven, & Court, 1993, 1994,
1995; J. C. Raven, 1941) stipulate that Raven’s scores are not symmetrically

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

214 JOURNAL OF BLACK PSYCHOLOGY / MAY 2001

distributed around their mean. Consequently, progressive matrices should

not be converted to IQ scores. Unfortunately, many hereditarian researchers
have ignored this advice.
Furthermore, most of the studies examining racial differences in intelli-
gence have used either univariate analyses (e.g., t test, analysis of variance) or
have involved multivariate analyses that have assumed that the relationships
between variables are in one direction (e.g., multiple regression multivariate
analysis of variance). Disturbingly, there has been a paucity of investigations
using more complex statistical models such as structural equation modeling
and multilevel modeling, which may more adequately explain the intricate
relationships among intelligence, race, economic status, and other sociocul-
tural factors.

CONCLUSION

Despite the ambiguity and contradictions in defining intelligence, and the

disagreement about its importance, attempts have been made throughout this
century to develop instruments that purport to measure this elusive entity and
to capture it in a single score called an IQ.
Whether we like to admit it, there is no doubt that the question of racial dif-
ferences in intelligence is a divisive one. In this article, we have outlined eight
major premises of individuals who believe that racial differences in intelli-
gence exist, and we have attempted to provide evidence that, at the very least,
casts some serious doubts about the validity of each. Moreover, much of the
evidence cited should lead all but the most extreme hereditarian to refute at
least some of these assumptions.
Despite more than a century of intelligence research at present, the most
that can be stated about IQ tests with any confidence is that they measure an
unknown combination of raw cognitive ability, accumulated knowledge,
acquired characteristics, and learned behaviors. Unfortunately, it is beyond
our scope, at least currently, to know at any particular moment which of these
factors is being tapped.
Even if the hereditarian theory of g is proven to be correct beyond reason-
able doubt in the court of science, then extensive research should follow to
determine the implications of this finding. All policy that ensues must stem
from this research base. Disturbingly, many of the recommendations pro-
posed by hereditarians are not based on research. For example, Herrnstein
and Murray (1994) recommend slashing social programs. They justify this
by declaring that individuals at the low end of the intelligence continuum

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

 Onwuegbuzie, Daley / RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN IQ 215

cannot be helped. Apparently, the IQ wheels should be allowed to turn and

thus determine these individuals’ ultimate status in society by filtering them
into professions that are appropriate to their innate levels of intelligence.
Viewed in this way, IQ testing is essentially a theory of boundaries and social
caste. Moreover, because hereditarians believe in racial differences in intelli-
gence, it could be argued that their vision of future society is, in its purest
form, a theory of racial caste.
Imagine if this IQ model were to be used in the medical field; this would
lead to millions of individuals not being given the opportunity to wear glasses
or hearing aids purely because they have the worst eyesight and hearing,
respectively! Thankfully, this is not the case. Moreover, because glasses and
hearing aids help to improve physical defects, why shouldn’t educational
interventions assist in improving educational outcomes? In any event, if we
take the opposite approach that all the educational spoils should go to the
most deserving members of the cognitive elite, then it is the Asian Americans
who should be indulged because they apparently have the highest IQ scores.
Instead of attempting to boost IQ scores, researchers perhaps should
investigate the actual knowledge, skills, and behavior that are considered to
be important by society. If we found that professional singers had larger
lungs, would we endeavor to enlarge the lungs of individuals who are unable
to hold a note?
In 1992, the U.S. population totaled approximately 255 million, with 25%
comprising African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, or
Native American ancestry (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). Between the
ages of 10 and 19, 68.8% were non-Latino Whites, 14.8% were African
American, 12.1% were Latinos, 3.4% were Asian/Pacific Islanders, and
1.0% were Native American (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). Moreover, it
has been projected that by 2010, Caucasian Americans (i.e., non-Latino
Whites) will comprise only 60.4% of those between 14 and 24, and 67.7% of
the total population in the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994).
By the same year, minority children younger than age 18 will be in the major-
ity in the seven following states: Hawaii (79.5%), California (56.9%), Texas
(56.9%), Florida (53.4%), New Mexico (76.5%), New York (52.8%), and
Louisiana (50.3%) (Wetrogan, 1988). Even more compelling, by 2050, it is
predicted that the U.S. population will consist of approximately one third
Asian Americans and Latinos and 16% African Americans, with only one
half being non-Latino White (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). It is pro-
jected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000) that by 2008 Caucasian
Americans will represent only 9.7% of entrants into the labor force as com-
pared to 19.5% for African Americans, 40% for Asian Americans, and 36.8%
for Hispanic Americans. Thus, it is inevitable that Caucasian Americans will

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

216 JOURNAL OF BLACK PSYCHOLOGY / MAY 2001

be increasingly dependent on the productivity of minority workers. However,

unless the educational output and, consequently, the human capital of minori-
ties is maximized, the ability to maintain present levels of productivity in the
future in the United States is in serious doubt (William T. Grant Commission
on Work, Family and Citizenship, 1988).
Disturbingly, the overwhelming majority of empirical studies, in general,
published in major journals focus specifically or primarily on Caucasian
Americans, with a paucity being conducted on minority populations (Gra-
ham, 1992; Hagen & Conley, 1994; McLoyd & Randolph, 1985). Unfortu-
nately, of those including minority populations, most are not guided by an
explicit theoretical or conceptual framework, with the majority designed
purely to document the existence of mean differences based on ambiguous
notions of why the study of race or ethnicity is important (Jones, 1991). Such
obsession with race-comparative research has generated more questions than
it has answered, which has impeded the development of psychological theory
relevant to minority groups (Azibo, 1988; McLoyd & Randolph, 1984). Con-
sequently, these studies have promoted racial group stereotypes. Further-
more, many formal investigations of minorities are fraught with substantial
methodological and conceptual problems. As such, they are seriously flawed.
In particular, they have unknown external validity because of the lack of con-
sideration of social class background of either the minority individuals or
their Caucasian American comparison group (McLoyd & Randolph, 1984).
For research on minorities to be relevant, investigators must understand
the proximate social stimuli and interpersonal interactions that arise from
one’s social milieu, cultural belief systems that guide behavior and give
meaning to experiences, interactions and exposure to situations that are more
prevalent in social and cultural contexts associated with racial oppression and
hardship, and experiences of past and present racial discrimination (McLoyd,
1998).
Instead of simply documenting whether racial differences in intelligence
and other areas exist, researchers should study sources of within-group varia-
tion and determine whether the antecedents, correlates, and pathways of neg-
ative outcomes differ as a function of race (McLoyd, 1998). Research on
resiliency appears to be particularly pertinent here. This research could focus
on groups such as African American women and African American individu-
als from middle- and upper-income groups that comprise 35% to 40% of all
African Americans (Gibbs, 1998). In any case, documenting racial and eth-
nic differences should be substituted by systematic studies of factors and
mechanisms that mediate these differences (McLoyd, 1998). That is, cultural
deficit and cultural deviance models should be replaced with research that is
based on cultural variance and adaptive models (Gibbs, 1998).

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

 Onwuegbuzie, Daley / RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN IQ 217

That is not to say that researchers who infer the existence of racial differ-
ences in intelligence are necessarily racist. However, it is clear that many of
them have not applied the scientific method in conducting research. In gen-
eral, these authors have tended to (a) argue rather than investigate; (b) provide
vague, illogical, and often contradictory frameworks; (c) ignore or trivialize
rival hypotheses; (d) rely on innuendos and scholarly brinkmanship to inter-
pret their data; and (e) attempt to persuade their readers that they are taking an
atavistic and agnostic stance.
Furthermore, the ways in which researchers in this field have commonly
violated the scientific method include (a) ignorance of whole bodies of
knowledge relevant to conclusions; (b) complacent acceptance of tainted,
unreliable sources; (c) overlooking of inconvenient facts; (d) convenient mis-
reporting of findings; (e) subjective interpretation directed toward prior prej-
udice; (f) noninterpreting of inconvenient findings or agnosticism; (g) favor-
able inconsistencies; (h) procedural omissions; and (i) generalizations or
recommendations that do not follow from the data.
In short, hereditarian researchers have tended to let their a priori convic-
tions dictate their research design, data analyses, and conclusions. As such, a
self-fulfilling prophecy has been maintained, with these researchers’ unfounded
beliefs leading them to reason back through their data in a vicious circle that
confirms their initial hypotheses. In making their conclusions that racial dif-
ferences in intelligence exist, hereditarian researchers have ignored the role
of culture and have misinterpreted an illusory correlation as fact.
Methodological flaws in IQ research examining racial differences include
(a) use of convenient, nonrepresentative samples of urban, low-income
youth; (b) use of unbalanced research designs with inadequate control
groups; (c) use of unreliable and invalid measures in inappropriate settings;
and (d) inept data analysis that infers unwarranted generalizations to specific
populations of minorities.
As flawed as hereditarian research has proven to be in the past decade,
these researchers should not be discouraged from continuing their work in
this area, for this is the essence of academic freedom. However, classicists
should be encouraged to be more rigorous in applying the scientific method,
as should all researchers, including those to whom Herrnstein and Murray
(1994) refer as revisionists (who contend that intelligence is a process) and
radicals (who believe that intelligence is multidimensional).
In conducting research that involves minorities, especially that pertaining
to intelligence, all researchers should strive to be objective, fair, comprehen-
sive, cautious, and above all, humble. Studies can no longer afford to be
skewed to reify researchers’ beliefs that the behaviors of minority groups are
essentially deviant, their values misguided, and their performance deficient

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

218 JOURNAL OF BLACK PSYCHOLOGY / MAY 2001

(Bell-Scott & Taylor, 1989). No branch of research necessitates these quali-

ties so much as does that pertaining to intelligence because, historically, find-
ings from this area often have led to far-reaching political interventions such
as the 1922 Immigration Act, the 1924 Sterilization Law, the 1954 Brown v.
Board of Education ruling, and, most recently, affirmative action laws. In
short, thus far, intelligence research has advanced the politics of oppression,
further stigmatizing and marginalizing minority individuals to justify poli-
cies and strategies that focus on elitism and exclusion instead of on meritoc-
racy, egalitarianism, and equal opportunity. As such, research on racial dif-
ferences is not just an academic exercise. Indeed, two of the most influential
works in this area in the past 30 years were seriously flawed, namely, (a) Jensen
(1969), which was one of the most cited social science articles in the 1970s,
and (b) Herrnstein and Murray (1994), which was a best-selling book.
Finally, all intelligence research should undergo rigorous peer review
regardless of the eminence of the researcher involved. In particular, the poli-
tics of research should be scrutinized carefully. It is only by holding intelli-
gence research to the highest standards that we can hope to advance the field.

REFERENCES

Azibo, D. (1988). Understanding the proper and improper usage of the comparative research
framework. Journal of Black Psychology, 15, 81-91.
Bell-Scott, P., & Taylor, R. L. (1989). The multiple ecologies of Black adolescent development.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 119-123.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Sur la necessité d’établir un diagnostic scientifique des états
inferieurs de l’intelligence. L’année psychologique, 11.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gibbs, J. T. (1998). High risk behaviors in African American youth: Conceptual and method-
ological issues in research. In V. C. McLoyd & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Studying minority ado-
lescents: Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues (pp. 55-86). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
Graham, S. (1992). “Most of the subjects were White and middle class”: Trends in published
research on African Americans in selected APA journals, 1970-1989. American Psycholo-
gist, 47, 629-639.
Greenfield, P. M. (1998). The cultural evolution of IQ. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve
(pp. 81-124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293.
Hacker, A. (1992). Two nations: Black and White, separate, hostile, unequal. New York:
Scribner.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

 Onwuegbuzie, Daley / RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN IQ 219

Hagen, J. W., & Conley, A. C. (1994, Spring). Ethnicity and race of children studied in child
development, 1980-1993. Society for Research in Child Development Newsletter, pp. 6-7.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in Ameri-
can life. New York: Free Press.
Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 39, 1-123.
Jones, J. M. (1991). Psychological models of race: What have they been and what should they
be? In J. D. Goodchilds (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on human diversity in America
(pp. 7-46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Layzer, D. (1995). Science or superstition? In R. Jacoby & N. Glauberman (Eds.), The bell curve
debate: History, documents, opinions (pp. 653-678). New York: Times Books.
Loehlin, J. C., Lindzey, G., & Spuhler, J. (1975). Race differences in intelligence. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Lynn, R. (1998). Decline of genotypic intelligence. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve (pp. 335-
364). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Changing demographics in the American population: Implications for
research on minority children and adolescents. In V. C. McLoyd & L. Steinberg (Eds.),
Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues (pp. 3-
28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McLoyd, V. C., & Randolph, S. (1984). The conduct and publication of research on Afro-Ameri-
can children: A content analysis. Human Development, 27, 65-75.
McLoyd, V. C., & Randolph, S. (1985). Secular trends in the study of Afro-American children: A
review of child development, 1936-1980. In A. Smuts & J. Hagen (Eds.), History and
research in child development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment (pp. 78-92, 50, 4-5, Serial No. 211).
Mundy-Castle, A. C. (1974). Social and technological intelligence in Western and non-Western
cultures. Universititas, 4, 46-52.
Neisser, U. (1998). Rising test scores. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve (pp. 3-22). Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Raven, J. (1981). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary Scales
(Research suppl. 1). London: H. K. Lewis.
Raven, J., & Court, J. H. (1989). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary
Scales (Research suppl. 4). London: H. K. Lewis.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1993). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales (Section 1). Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1994). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales (Section 5A). Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1995). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales (Section J, general overview). Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardization of the progressive matrices. British Journal of Medical Psy-
chology, 19, 137-150.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York:
Penguin.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities (Psychometric monographs, No. 1). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Thurstone, L. L. (1946, February). Theories of intelligence. Scientific Monthly, pp. 101-112.
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, (1994). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1994. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015

220 JOURNAL OF BLACK PSYCHOLOGY / MAY 2001

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000). Civilian labor force 16 years and older by sex, age, race,
and Hispanic origin, 1988, 1998, and projected 2008 [Online]. Available: http://stats.bls.
gov/news.release/ecopro.t05.htm. Washington, DC: Author.
Waldman, I. D. (1998). Problems in inferring dysgenic trends for intelligence. In U. Neisser (Ed.),
The rising curve (pp. 365-376). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition.
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third Edition. San Anto-
nio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wetrogan, S. (1988). Projections of the population of states by age, sex, race: 1988 to 2010 (Cur-
rent population reports, Series P-25). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
William T. Grant Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship. (1988). The forgotten half:
Pathways to success for America’s youth and young families. Washington, DC: Author.
Wober, M. (1974). Towards an understanding of the Kinganda concept of intelligence. In J. W. Berry &
P. R. Dasen (Eds.), Culture and cognition (pp. 261-280). London: Methuen.
Wober, M. (1975). Psychology in Africa. London: International African Institution.
Yerkes, R. M. (Ed.). (1921). Psychological examining in the United States army. Memoirs of the
National Academy of Sciences, vol. 15.

Downloaded from jbp.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 9, 2015