General Intelligence

  • Lloyd G. Humphreys
Part of the Perspectives on Individual Differences book series (PIDF)


Both the theory of intelligence and its measurement have been confused by failure to follow a scientifically acceptable definition of intelligence. In good part, the problem arises from the folk definition of intelligence that involves the innate fixed capacity of a person to solve problems. This folk definition differs in only one important respect in its usage by environmentalists as opposed to hereditarians. The former tend to minimize the importance of individual differences in this fixed capacity, holding that any normal person has the fundamental capacity to achieve at a high level. Environmentalists are also strongly convinced that intelligence tests do not measure this capacity.


General Factor Latent Trait Assortative Mating Behavioral Trait Achievement Test 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Children’s Defense Fund. America’s children and their families: Key facts, 1982. (Available from author [1520 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036]).Google Scholar
  2. Clarke-Stewart, A. Interactions between mothers and their young children: Characteristics and consequences. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1973, 38 (6–7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cleary, T., Humphreys, L., Kendrick, S., & Wesman, A. Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 15–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coover, J. E. Metapsychics and the incredulity of psychologists. In C. Murchison (Ed.), The case for and against psychic belief Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1927.Google Scholar
  5. Flanagan, J., Davis, F., Dailey, J., Shaycoft, M., Orr, D., Goldberg, I., & Neyman, C. The American high school student. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1964.Google Scholar
  6. Guilford, J. P. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
  7. Guttman, L. A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 1944, 9, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Humphreys, L. The nature and organization of human abilities. In M. Katz (Ed.), 19th Yearbook of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Ames, Iowa: Author, 1962. (a)Google Scholar
  9. Humphreys, L. The organization of human abilities. American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 475–483. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Humphreys, L. Analytical approach to the correlation between related pairs of subjects on psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 149–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Humphreys, L. Theory of intelligence. In R. Cancro (Ed.), Intelligence: Genetic and environmental influences. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1971.Google Scholar
  12. Humphreys, L. The construct of general intelligence. Intelligence, 1979, 3, 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Humphreys, L. The primary mental ability. In M. P. Friedman, J. P. Das, & N. O’Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and learning. New York: Plenum, 1981, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Humphreys, L., & Dachler, H. P. Jensen’s theory of intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60, 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphreys, L., & Parsons, C. Piagetian tasks measure intelligence and intelligence tests assess cognitive development. Intelligence, 1979, 3, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Humphreys, L., Parsons, C., & Park, R. Dimensions involved in differences among school means of cognitive measures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1979, 16, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jencks, C. Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, 1972.Google Scholar
  18. Jensen, A. Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  19. Loehlin, J., Lindzey, G., & Spuhler, J. Race differences in intelligence. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975.Google Scholar
  20. Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 1957, 33, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spearman, C. The theory of two factors. Psychological Review, 1914, 21, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomson, G. On the cause of hierarchical order among correlation coefficients. Proceedings of the Royal Society (A), 1919, 95.Google Scholar
  23. Thurstone, L. Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938. (Psychometric Monograph No. 1)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lloyd G. Humphreys
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of IllinoisChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations