Advertisement

Cognitive Ability, Wages, and Meritocracy

  • John Cawley
  • Karen Conneely
  • James Heckman
  • Edward Vytlacil

Abstract

In their controversial book The Bell Curve, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray summarize an impressive body of research on the correlations between social outcomes and scores on tests of cognitive ability.1 A remarkable finding of the research they survey is that one linear combination of tests—called general intelligence, or g—predicts performance almost as well as the full battery of tests.

Keywords

Cognitive Ability Wage Premium General Intelligence Wage Regression Bell Curve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Herrnstein, RJ. and Murray, C. (1994), The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thurstone, L. (1947). Multiple Factor Analysis: A Development and Expansion of The Vectors of The Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carroll, J.B. (1993), Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spearman, C. (1927), The Abilities of Man: Their Nature and their Measurement, Macmillan, New York. Reprinted: (1981), AMS Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cattell, R.B. (1987), Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth, and Action, North-Holland, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jensen, A.R. (1987), “The g Beyond Factor Analysis,” in R.R. Ronning, J.A. Glover, J.C. Conoley, and J.C. Dewitt (Eds.) The Influence of Cognitive Psychology on Testing and Measurement, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ree, M J., and Earles, J.A. (1991), “Predicting Training Success: Not Much More Than g, Personnel Psychology, 44, 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suppes, P., and Zanotti, M. (1981), “When are Probabilistic Explanations Possible?,” Syntbese, 48,191–199MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blackburn, M.L., and Neumark, D.(1993) “Omitted-Ability Bias and the Increase in the Return to Schooling,” Journal of Labor Economics, 11, 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cawley, J., Heckman, J J., Lochner, L., and Vytlacil, E. (1996), Ability, Human Capital, and Wages, unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ree, M J., Earles, J.A., and Teachout, M.S.(1994)“Predicting Job Performance: Not Much More Than g,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 518–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mincer, J.(1974)Schooling, Experience, and Earnings, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, L-F. (1983), “Generalized Econometric Models with Selectivity,” Econometrica, 51,507–512.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heckman, JJ. (1970), “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error,” Econometrica, 47,153–161MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cawley, J., Conneely, K., Heckman, J., and Vytlacil, E. (1996), Measuring the Effects of Cognitive Ability, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper #5645.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldberger, A. (1968), Topics in Regression Analysis, McMillan, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Cawley
  • Karen Conneely
  • James Heckman
  • Edward Vytlacil

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations