PSY4011:

Research Methods and

Statistics I
WEEK 2 SEMINAR: DATA COLLECTION &
BACKGROUND
Outline
A. Data Collection

B. Practical 1 - Background

PSY4011
Measuring
Intelligence

PSY4011
Measuring Intelligence – I.Q.
• Psychometric approach – tests that look for an Intelligence Quotient (I.Q)

• An individual’s I.Q. provides an estimate of how “intelligent” they are

compared to an age matched group based on a particular standardised test

PSY4011
Features of Intelligence tests
• Test requires reliability and validity.

• Test is standardised to a large and appropriate sample.

• Test is administered using standardised methods and procedures.

• Individual test scores are compared to those of the sample used to standardise the
test.

• Test generates an overall IQ as well as specific scores in particular areas (e.g. verbal
IQ, spatial IQ, performance IQ, etc.).

PSY4011
 I.Q. Tests
 RELIABILITY
• Very high internal reliability (positive correlation between test items)
• Test-retest reliability has shown fluctuations as much as 15 IQ points (Benson, 2003)
• Fluctuations may be influenced by administration and practice effects
• Impressive stability over the lifespan – 11-77yr olds: r = .73 (Deary et al., 2000); 11-70yr
olds: r = .66 and 11-87yr-olds r = .51 (Gow et al., 2011)

 VALIDITY
• High face validity (looks like it measures what it claims to measure)
• High concurrent validity (relationship with other measures of intelligence)
• Good predictive validity (predict real-world measures of intelligence)
• IQ correlates highly with school grades (r = .50)
• Predicts occupational status & job performance (r =.30; r = .50)
PSY4011
I.Q. Tests
• The test gives you an overall I.Q. score

which reflects ALL the subtest scores within

and which is regarded as an overall measure of intellectual ability

PSY4011
 An individual’s IQ score provides an estimate of how “intelligent” they
are compared to an age matched group

The “bell curve” shows the normal distribution of IQ scores, with a Mean=100 (SD=15)
68.2% between 85-115
95.6 % between 70-130 (within 2 SDs)
PSY4011
PSY4011
 PRACTICAL 1 – DATA COLLECTION
IMPORTANT:
Do not discuss with or show your
estimates to other participants

https://stmarys.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/psy4011-202021

IQ scores

• M=100
• SD=15
• 68% between 85-115
• 95.6 % between 70-130

PSY4011
Practical 1:
Background

PSY4011
Practical Report 1
• TOPIC: Sex differences in self-estimates of general I.Q.

Data collected:
Estimates of your own IQ

◦ DV = Estimate of IQ
◦ IV = Sex (Males vs. Females)

◦ RQ: Will self-estimates of overall I.Q. be different for males and females?

PSY4011
 Practical Report 1 – next task!
Your next task:
 Identify a hypothesis for the above research question

How?
 Review previous literature on the topic for clues as to how males and females
might differ when making self-estimates of IQ

PSY4011
 Sex differences in self-estimates of general
I.Q
• What would we predict???

• Here is some information to get you started

BUT… you need to do your own independent literature reviewing to support/
justify your prediction

• Make sure you search for the correct topic

◦ IQ estimates or perceptions (NOT actual IQ differences)
◦ Male hubris-Female humility effect in self-estimates of I.Q.
◦ Come up with a prediction for the RQ

PSY4011
Sex differences in self-estimates of general
I.Q.

• What is intelligence?

• Estimating intelligence

• Evidence and explanations

PSY4011
Theories of Intelligence
 Charles Spearman (1904): Two-factor theory of intelligence
• ‘g’ – general ability
• ‘s’ – specific ability

 Raymond Cattell (1966): ‘g’ comprises of

• ‘Gc’ – crystallised intelligence
• ‘Gf’ – fluid intelligence

 Howard Gardner (1983): Multiple intelligences

• Linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Spatial, Musical, Bodily Kinaesthetic,
Interpersonal, Intrapersonal

PSY4011
 Defining Intelligence…
The (mental) ability to comprehend complex ideas, adapt effectively to a particular
environment, learn from experience, engage in forms of (cognitive) reasoning and to
overcome obstacles with the use of appropriate (cognitive) skills and abilities
derived from Neisser et al. (1996)

Traits that reflect how well individuals can process various types of information; reflecting
cognitive processes and skills
Cooper (2002)

The general ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, learn quickly, and
learn from experience.
Gottfredson, 2000, p.81 (as cited in TCP, 2007)

PSY4011
 Issue of definition!

We need to define something before we prepare a tool to measure it!

Thus, I.Q. tests are built to measure a particular definition / theory of intelligence
(E.g. ‘g’)… (Refer back to slides 3-8 for measuring intelligence)

PSY4011
Estimating Intelligence
We did not record ACTUAL IQ… But rather ESTIMATES of IQ

Our Research Question and Hypothesis are both related to

‘estimates of IQ’

PSY4011
Do IQ scores actually vary according to
biological sex?
• Not really! Actual overall IQ scores are essentially the same for males and
females

• Some specific abilities may be different – males are very slightly better at
spatial reasoning (d=.2) / females may be better at verbal reasoning (Lynn &
Irving, 2004) – maybe genetics or maybe due to socialisation?

• Generally, within group variation is bigger than between group variations

• Small differences make a big splash

PSY4011
The differences between men and women have shifted historically.

“Sex differences in the brain are irresistible to those looking to

explain stereotypic differences between men and women,” said Dr.
Eliot.

“They often make a big splash, in spite of being based on small

samples. But as we explore multiple datasets and are able to
coalesce very large samples of males and females, we find these
differences often disappear or are trivial”.

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029185544.htm?utm_content=buffer27779&ut
m_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

PSY4011
EVIDENCE relating to self-estimates of
I.Q.

PSY4011
 Hogan (1978)
• 881 males and 1021 females were asked to estimate what their IQ scores
would be on standard tests, what the IQ of others would be, and what the IQ
of their mothers and fathers would be.

• Resulting patterns:
(a) Compared with males, females invariably underestimated their IQ scores.
(b) Compared with males, females attributed higher IQs to others than they claimed
for themselves.
(c) Without exception, male and female subjects — females especially —projected
higher IQs onto their fathers than their mothers.

PSY4011
 Petrides and Furnham (2004)
• 239 British people provided estimates of their own and their children's general,
emotional, analytic, creative, and practical intelligence (i.e. multiple intelligences).

• Results suggested:
a. Men (fathers) rated their own levels of analytic and practical intelligence
significantly higher than women (mothers) rated theirs.
b. However, women rated their emotional intelligence significantly higher than men.
c. Also interestingly, fathers tended to give higher estimates than mothers for their
first-born child's general, analytic, and creative intelligence.
d. There were no significant effects for second-born children (poor middle children!)
e. Parents rated their third-born female children higher than their third-born male
children on emotional, analytic, and practical intelligence.

PSY4011
 Furnham, Kosari and Swami
(2012)
• A study in Iran: 258 Iranian participants estimated their own, parents', and
partners' overall (general) intelligence, and also estimated 13 ‘multiple
intelligences’

• Consistent with previous research:

• Men rated themselves higher than women on logical-mathematical, spatial
and musical intelligence.
• Participants also believed that they were more intelligent than their parents
and partners…
• AND they believed that their fathers were more intelligent than their
mothers.

PSY4011
 Why?

Most research finds that men and women’s actual IQs do not differ

So, why does data from 30 countries from Argentina to Zambia suggest
there is a universal finding that men estimate their own IQ as 3-10 points
higher than females? (e.g. Furnham, 2000; Furnham & Bunclark, 2006;
Furnham & Shagabutdinova, 2012; Szymanowicz & Furnham, 2011).

PSY4011
Possible explanations…
1. Socialisation:
Boys are encouraged to brag about and girls to hide their intelligence

2. Male ‘Hubris’, Female ‘Humility’:

Do men over-estimate or women under-estimate their actual IQ, or both?

3. Self-beliefs/Self-confidence:
Henry Ford: “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't―you’re right.” Can
male achievement in so many aspects of life in part be attributed to their self-belief
in their intelligence which may (or may not) accurately reflect their actual ability?

4. Gender stereotypes:
Psychometric IQ tests are seen as more ‘masculine’ as compared to Emotional IQ
tests, which are seen as more ‘feminine’

PSY4011
 What does current research say?

What would you predict for students in a

Twickenham University in 2020?

Make your own literature/evidence-based prediction!

PSY4011
 Further Reading
• Beloff, H. (1992). Mother, father and me. The Psychologist, 5, 309-311.
• Furnham, A. (2001). Self-estimates of intelligence: culture and gender difference in self and
other estimates of both general (g) and multiple intelligences. Personality and Individual
Differences, 31, 1381-1405 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00232-4 . 
• Furnham, A., Kosari, A. & Swami, V. (2012). Estimates of Self, Parental and Partner Multiple
Intelligences in Iran: A replication and extension. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 7(2), 66-73.
• Hogan, W. (1978). IQ self-estimates of males and females. Journal of Social Psychology, 106,
137-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924160
• Petrides, K.V. & Furnham, A. (2004). Parental estimates of five types of intelligence. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 56(1), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.2.149-162
• von Stumm, S., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Decomposing self-estimates of
intelligence: Structure and sex differences across 12 nations. British Journal of Psychology, 100,
429-442. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X357876

PSY4011
 Timeline for Practical 1
Work consistently week-by-week. Due in less than 1 month!

Week Date Lecture Seminar Workshop

2 7th Oct Practical 1 - Data collection 
Practical 1 – Background
3 14th Oct Practical 1 – Introduction &
Method
4 21st Oct Practical 1 – Results & Practical 1 – Data
Discussion analysis
5 28th Oct Practical 1 – Drop-in Practical 1 – Drop-
sessions in sessions

6 3rd Nov Practical 1 Submission (Tuesday, 3pm)

PSY4011
Next week: Seminar…

Practical 1:
Introduction and Method

PSY4011