I–O Psychologists and Intelligence Research: Active, Aware, and Applied

Full text

186
B.E. Postlethwaite, T.L. Giluk, and F.L. Schmidt
I–O Psychologists and Intelligence
Research: Active, Aware, and Applied
BENNETT E. POSTLETHWAITE
Pepperdine University
TAMARA L. GILUK
Xavier University
FRANK L. SCHMIDT
University of Iowa
Scherbaum, Goldstein, Yusko, Ryan, and
Hanges (2012) have challenged indus-
trial–organizational (I–O) psychologists to
‘‘launch a new research agenda’’ on intel-
ligence. Although we enthusiastically sup-
port the authors’ call for more intelligence
research, we believe that several of their
claims depict the current state of affairs
as more dire than is actually the case.
We argue that I–O psychologists are more
active in the area of intelligence research
than the authors present, maintain that
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Bennett E. Postlethwaite.
E-mail: ben.postlethwaite@pepperdine.edu
Address: Seaver College, Pepperdine University,
24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90263-
4237
All authors contributed equally to this commentary.
many I–O psychologists are aware of intel-
ligence research published in non-I–O out-
lets, and contend that a primary focus on
applied research is desirable.
I–O Psychologists Are Conducting
Intelligence Research
Scherbaum et al. maintain that I–O psy-
chology’s contribution to intelligence re-
search has been decreasing over time. On
the basis of their cursory analysis of
Journal
of Applied Psychology
(
JAP
) and
Personnel
Psychology
(
PPsych
), the authors estimate
that 2–3% of content in these journals is
related to intelligence. We sought to deter-
mine the extent to which I–O psychologists
are publishing intelligence-related research
in other outlets.

Active, Aware, and Applied
187
First, we replicated Scherbaum et al.’s
search. We then adapted their search
by altering the term
general cognitive
ability
(less commonly used) to
cognitive
ability
(more widely used). This small
change more than doubled the number
of relevant articles returned. Whereas
the authors located 35 intelligence-related
articles published in
JAP
and
PPsych
from
2000 to 2011, our revised search revealed
81 articles. Likewise, the authors found
five articles published in
JAP
during 2010
(Volume 95). They estimated the percent
of intelligence research as 1%, based on
a reported 430 articles in total (5/430 =
1.1%). However, we noted that there
were only 85 articles (excluding editorial
material) published in
JAP
in 2010. This
suggests that approximately 5.9%, rather
than 1%, of articles in that volume were
concerned with intelligence.
We also examined a sample of I–O psy-
chology, general, and social psychology
journals from 2000 to 2011. Our results
indicate that I–O psychologists are inves-
tigating intelligence to a greater degree
than Scherbaum et al. suggest. Much of
this research appears in journals with an
I–O psychology focus. For example, I–O
psychologists authored 13.9% (58/416) of
articles in
International Journal of Selection
and Assessment
and 18% (44/244) of arti-
cles in
Human Performance
that examined
intelligence to some degree. In compari-
son, the percentages for
JAP
and
PPsych
were 4.6% (57/1,246) and 8% (24/300),
respectively.
I–O psychologists are also publish-
ing intelligence research in other out-
lets. We sampled 5 years (2000–2002 and
2010–2011) of the journal
Intelligence
and
found 9.1% (17/187) of articles had at least
one I–O psychologist author. Interestingly,
with the exception of
Intelligence
, general
and social psychology journals (e.g.,
Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Applied
,
Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology
,
and
Psychological Bulletin
) had consider-
ably lower percentages (1.8–2.3% from
2000 to 2011, considering both I–O and
non-I–O authors) of articles examining
general intelligence than did I–O psy-
chology journals. Thus, I–O psychologists
are doing research on general intelligence,
and I–O journals are publishing it to a
greater extent than non-I–O journals. Alter-
natively, other journals may be publishing
research on cognitive processes; however,
this research (e.g., working memory) is not
being captured by the keywords intelli-
gence, general mental ability, or cognitive
ability.
We acknowledge, as did Scherbaum
et al., that our search process was rudi-
mentary. However, we believe our results
present a more optimistic assessment of the
attention that I–O psychologists are paying
to the construct of intelligence. Neverthe-
less, we agree with the authors that the field
of I–O psychology would benefit from a
renewed interest in the construct.
I–O Psychologists Are Aware of
Research in Non-I–O Outlets
Scherbaum et al. comment that I–O psy-
chologists doing intelligence research tend
to publish in ‘‘journals that the typical
I–O psychologist does not read,’’ implying
that other I–O psychologists are unaware
of this research. To assess this possibil-
ity, we examined the reference lists of the
81 intelligence-related articles in
JAP
and
PPsych
from 2000 to 2011 for citations to
three journals:
Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology: General
,
Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied
, and
Intelligence
.We
found that 42% (34/81) of articles cited
at least one of these journals. Of these,
the average number of citations is 2.59
(
SD
=2.26, range =1–13). These numbers
are likely an underestimate; the reviewed
articles frequently cited other sources on
intelligence (e.g., other specialist journals
and book chapters).
Our results indicate that although I–O
psychologists may not regularly read non-
I–O journals, they are aware of research
published in these outlets and reference
it when relevant. Given the large number
of journals, it would be difficult for the
typical I–O psychologist to regularly read

188
B.E. Postlethwaite, T.L. Giluk, and F.L. Schmidt
all those containing research in their field.
The ease of electronic searching makes it
less essential for I–O psychologists to read a
particular journal than to comprehensively
search across journals to remain abreast of
developments in their area of expertise.
I–O Psychology Is an Applied
Science
Scherbaum et al. argue that I –O psycholo-
gists need to broaden their ‘‘narrow focus’’
on applied research and increase research
on the nature of the intelligence construct.
We contend that a primary focus on appli-
cation is appropriate; the fact that others
(e.g., cognitive psychologists and neuropsy-
chologists) may take the lead on basic
research, whereas I–O psychologists have
a more applied focus, is not as problematic
as the authors assert.
I–O psychologists are scientist-practiti-
oners (Society for Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology [SIOP], 2011a); I–O
psychology is a field in which ‘‘rigor and
methods of psychology are applied to issues
of critical relevance to business’’ (SIOP,
2011b). Thus, by definition, the primary
focus is application. We agree that basic
research on the construct, nature, and mea-
surement of intelligence is important. There
is value in I–O psychologists contributing to
this effort. However, a shift in focus
toward
basic research means a shift in focus
away
from
applied research and the very defini-
tion of I–O psychology.
In addition, psychologists who focus on
basic research rely on I–O psychologists
to investigate the applications of their
research to the workplace. We assert that
researchers are most effectively leveraged
doing the type of research for which
their training, skill sets, and resources best
position them. Most I–O psychologists are
trained in the scientist-practitioner model
and have an understanding of the work
context that non-I–O psychologists lack.
They also have resources required for
applied research (e.g., access to work
samples) that others may not; conversely,
cognitive psychologists have access to
resources for basic research (e.g., functional
magnetic resonance imaging) that I–O
psychologists lack. This offers opportunities
for collaboration; nevertheless, the typical
I–O psychologist is better positioned for
applied research.
Moreover, Scherbaum et al. appear to
present applied and basic research as
mutually exclusive. We argue that applied
research can contribute to knowledge about
the nature of intelligence. For example, one
of our current projects has an applied focus
in that it examines the relationship between
fluid and crystallized intelligence and mul-
tiple performance criteria; however, the
results will also have theoretical implica-
tions about the nature of intelligence.
In conclusion, we believe Scherbaum
et al. have highlighted important consider-
ations regarding the role of I–O psycholo-
gists in intelligence research. However, we
argue that I–O psychologists are making
more robust contributions than the authors
suggest. Nevertheless, we echo Scherbaum
et al.’s call to increase research efforts on
this critical construct.
References
Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., Yusko, K. P.,
Ryan, R., & Hanges, P. J. (2012). Intelligence
2.0: Reestablishing a research program on
g
in
I– O psychology.
Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice
,
5
, 128– 148.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy. (2011a).
Maximizing human potential within
organizations: Learning the science behind tal-
ent management
. Retrieved from http://www.
siop.org/visibilitybrochure/siopbrochure.aspx.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy. (2011b).
What is I– O?
Retrieved from
www.siop.org.