Sex differences in ability tilt: Support for investment theory

Intelligence

Volumn 50, Issue , 2015, Pages 209-220

  Coyle, Thomas R ^a   Snyder, Anissa C ^a   Richmond, Miranda C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

Ability tilt; College majors; General intelligence (g); Investment theories; Occupations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937875362     PISSN: 01602896     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.04.012     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Achter J.A., Lubinski D., Benbow C.P., Eftekhari-Sanjani H. Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999, 91:777-786.
2. Carroll J.B. Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies 1993, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
3. Cattell R.B. Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action 1987, North-Holland, New York, NY.
4. Ceci S.J., Ginther D.K., Kahn S., Williams W.M. Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2014, 15:75-141.
5. Coyle T.R. Predictive validity of non-g residuals of tests: More than g. Journal of Intelligence 2014, 2:21-25.
6. Coyle T.R., Pillow D.R. SAT and ACT predict college GPA after removing g. Intelligence 2008, 36:719-729.
7. Coyle T.R., Pillow D.R., Snyder A.C., Kochunov P. Processing speed mediates the development of general intelligence (g) in adolescence. Psychological Science 2011, 22:1265-1269.
8. Coyle T.R., Purcell J.M., Snyder A.C., Kochunov P. Non-g residuals of the SAT and ACT predict specific abilities. Intelligence 2013, 41:114-120.
9. Coyle T.R., Purcell J.M., Snyder A.C., Richmond M.C. Ability tilt on the SAT and ACT predicts specific abilities and college majors. Intelligence 2014, 46:18-24.
10. Frey M.C., Detterman D.K. Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science 2004, 15:373-378.
11. Halpern D.F., Benbow C.P., Geary D.C., Gur R.C., Hyde J.S., Gernsbacher M.A. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2007, 8:1-51.
12. Hering J., McClain A. NLSY97 user's guide: A guide to rounds 1-5 data 2003, Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
13. Jensen A.R. The g factor: The science of mental ability 1998, Praeger, Westport, CT.
14. Lohman D.F., Gambrell J., Lakin J. The commonality of extreme discrepancies in the ability profiles of academically gifted students. Psychology Science Quarterly 2008, 50:269-282.
15. Lubinski D., Webb R.M., Morelock M.J., Benbow C.P. Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology 2001, 86:718-729.
16. Park G., Lubinski D., Benbow C.P. Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25years. Psychological Science 2007, 18:948-952.
17. Ree M.J., Carretta T.R. Factor analysis of the ASVAB: Confirming a Vernon-like structure. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1994, 54:459-463.
18. Scarr S., McCartney K. How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype environment effects. Child Development 1983, 54:424-435.
19. Schmidt F.L. A theory of sex differences in technical aptitude and some supporting evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2011, 6:560-573.
20. Wai J., Lubinski D., Benbow C.P. Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology 2009, 101:817-835.