intelligence and academic achievement

Post an explanation of the difference between intelligence and academic achievement. Then, select two influences: environmental and/or biological (you can select two of either category or one of each) that have been associated with intelligence and academic achievement. Briefly describe the two environmental and/or biological influences you selected. Explain the effects of each influence on intelligence and academic achievement. Be specific and provide examples. Use proper APA format and citations. about 250-300 words or so

****I have attached an article I would like for you to use for this as a reference please.*****
Intelligence New Findings and Theoretical Developments

Richard E. Nisbett University of Michigan Joshua Aronson and Clancy Blair New York University

William Dickens Northeastern University James Flynn University of Otago

Diane F. Halpern Claremont McKenna College Eric Turkheimer University of Virginia

We review new findings and new theoretical developments in the field of intelligence. New findings include the follow- ing: (a) Heritability of IQ varies significantly by social class. (b) Almost no genetic polymorphisms have been discovered that are consistently associated with variation in IQ in the normal range. (c) Much has been learned about the biological underpinnings of intelligence. (d) “Crystallized” and “fluid” IQ are quite different aspects of intelligence at both the behavioral and biological levels. (e) The importance of the environment for IQ is established by the 12-point to 18-point increase in IQ when children are adopted from working-class to middle-class homes. (f) Even when improvements in IQ produced by the most effective early childhood interventions fail to persist, there can be very marked effects on academic achievement and life outcomes. (g) In most developed countries studied, gains on IQ tests have continued, and they are beginning in the developing world. (h) Sex differences in aspects of intelligence are due partly to identifiable biological factors and partly to socialization factors. (i) The IQ gap between Blacks and Whites has been reduced by 0.33 SD in recent years. We report theorizing concerning (a) the relationship between working memory and intelligence, (b) the appar- ent contradiction between strong heritability effects on IQ and strong secular effects on IQ, (c) whether a general intelligence factor could arise from initially largely inde- pendent cognitive skills, (d) the relation between self-reg- ulation and cognitive skills, and (e) the effects of stress on intelligence.

Keywords: intelligence, fluid and crystallized intelligence, environmental and genetic influences, heritability, race and sex differences

In 1994, a controversial book about intelligence byRichard Herrnstein and Charles Murray called The BellCurve was published. The book argued that IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence; that IQ is a strong predictor of school and career achievement; that IQ is highly heritable; that IQ is little influenced by environmen- tal factors; that racial differences in IQ are likely due at least in part, and perhaps in large part, to genetics; that environmental effects of all kinds have only a modest effect on IQ; and that educational and other interventions have

little impact on IQ and little effect on racial differences in IQ. The authors were skeptical about the ability of public policy initiatives to have much impact on IQ or IQ-related outcomes.

The Bell Curve sold more than 300,000 copies and was given enormous attention by the press, which was largely uncritical of the methods and conclusions of the book. The Science Directorate of the American Psycholog- ical Association felt it was important to present the con- sensus of intelligence experts on the issues raised by the book, and to that end a group of experts representing a wide range of views was commissioned to produce a summary of facts that were widely agreed upon in the field and a survey of what the experts felt were important questions requiring further research. The leader of the group was Ulrich Neis- ser, and the article that was produced was critical of The Bell Curve in some important respects (Neisser et al., 1996). The article was also an excellent summary of what the great majority of experts believed to be the facts about intelligence at the time and important future directions for research.

Fifteen years after publication of the review by Neis- ser and colleagues (1996), a great many important new facts about intelligence have been discovered. It is our intent in this review to update the Neisser et al. article (which remains in many ways a good summary of the field

This article was published Online First January 2, 2012. Richard E. Nisbett, Institute for Social Research, University of Mich-

igan; Joshua Aronson and Clancy Blair, Department of Applied Psychol- ogy, New York University; William Dickens, Department of Economics, Northeastern University; James Flynn, Department of Psychology, Uni- versity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Diane F. Halpern, Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna College; Eric Turkheimer, Depart- ment of Psychology, University of Virginia.

The writing of this article and much of the research that went into it were supported by a generous grant from the Russell Sage Foundation, by National Institute on Aging Grant 1 R01 AG029509-01A2, and by Na- tional Science Foundation Grant 2007: BCS 0717982. The views pre- sented here are not necessarily those of the National Science Foundation.

We thank Angela Duckworth, Richard Haier, Susanne Jaeggi, John Jonides, Scott Kaufman, John Protzko, Carl Shulman, Robert Sternberg, and Oscar Ybarra for their critiques of an earlier version of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rich- ard E. Nisbett, Institute for Social Research, 3229 East Hall, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail:


130 February–March 2012 ● American Psychologist © 2012 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/12/$12.00

Vol. 67, No. 2, 130–159 DOI: 10.1037/a0026699

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

of intelligence). There are three chief respects in which our review differs importantly from that of Neisser and col- leagues: (a) Due in part to imaging techniques, a great deal is now known about the biology of intelligence. (b) Much more is known about the effects of environment on intel- ligence, and a great deal of that knowledge points toward assigning a larger role to the environment than did Neisser and colleagues and toward a more optimistic attitude about intervention possibilities. (c) More is now known about the effects of genes on intelligence and on the interaction of genes and the environment. Our article also presents a wide range of new theoretical questions and reviews some at- tempted solutions to those questions. We do not claim to represent the full range of views about intelligence. We do maintain, however, that few of the findings we report have been widely contradicted. Where we are aware of contro- versy, we provide sources where readers can be exposed to alternative views. We acknowledge that the theoretical questions we raise might not be the ones that every expert would agree are the most important ones, and we recognize that not every expert will agree with our views on these questions. We have referenced alternative views where we are aware that such exist.

The article is organized under the rubrics of genes and the environment, new knowledge about the effects of the environment, new knowledge about interventions, the bi- ology of intelligence, group differences in IQ, and impor- tant unresolved issues. Our working definition of intelli- gence is essentially that offered by Linda Gottfredson (1997):

[Intelligence] . . . involves the ability to reason, plan, solve prob- lems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surround- ings—“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do. (p. 13)

The measurement of intelligence is one of psycholo- gy’s greatest achievements and one of its most controver- sial. Critics complain that no single test can capture the complexity of human intelligence, all measurement is im- perfect, no single measure is completely free from cultural bias, and there is the potential for misuse of scores on tests of intelligence. There is some merit to all these criticisms. But we would counter that the measurement of intelli- gence—which has been done primarily by IQ tests—has utilitarian value because it is a reasonably good predictor of grades at school, performance at work, and many other aspects of success in life (Gottfredson, 2004; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). For example, students who score high on tests such as the SAT and the ACT, which correlate highly with IQ measures (Detterman & Daniel, 1989), tend to perform better in school than those who score lower (Coyle & Pillow, 2008). Similarly, people in professional careers, such as attorneys, accountants, and physicians, tend to have high IQs. Even within very narrowly defined jobs and on very narrowly defined tasks, those with higher IQs outper- form those with lower IQs on average, with the effects of

IQ being largest for those occupations and tasks that are most demanding of cognitive skills (F. L. Schmidt & Hunter, 1998, 2004). It is important to remain vigilant for misuse of scores on tests of intelligence or any other…