Thomas R. Coyle

Bauer et al. (2023) reported that first-generation college students hold a negatively biased talent self-concept, and argued that this bias partly explains their weaker academic performance. That account, however, omits two well-established predictors of academic achievement: general intelligence and conscientiousness. The current study (N = 468 undergraduates) re-examined talent and diligence self-concept alongside official SAT scores, cumulative GPA, conscientiousness (IPIP-NEO-60), and first-generation status. First- and continuing-generation students did not differ in talent self-concept, diligence self-concept, or conscientiousness, but continuing-generation students scored substantially higher on the SAT (d = .60) and modestly higher in GPA (d = .44). Talent self-concept was unrelated to GPA (r = .01); diligence self-concept predicted GPA only until conscientiousness was controlled (β = .05). In a mediation model, only SAT scores explained the difference in GPA between first- and continuing-generation college students. Talent self-concept thus shows little construct validity as a measure of ability, and diligence self-concept appears redundant with conscientiousness—a jangle fallacy. These self-concept constructs add no predictive ability for college academic performance beyond intelligence and conscientiousness.

Tilt refers to an ability pattern based on within person differences in two distinct abilities (e.g., verbal and math), yielding relative strength in one ability (e.g., math) and relative weakness in another (e.g., verbal). The current study is the first to examine age and sex differences in math-verbal tilt from 13- to 17-years. Test scores were obtained from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery in the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth ( N = 6969), a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the United States. Tilt was based on differences in math and verbal scores, yielding math tilt (indicating math strength) and verbal tilt (indicating verbal strength). Other variables included processing speed and general intelligence ( g ), which were expected to facilitate the acquisition of specific abilities that produce tilt. Contrary to research on sex differences in vocational preferences, levels of math and verbal tilt were higher in males than females. In addition, both sexes showed large tilt effects from zero ( d > 1.00), where zero indicates no tilt (i.e., no difference in math and verbal scores), indicating large levels of math or verbal tilt within individuals. The large tilt effects from zero support investment theories, which assume that individuals seek out and select activities in specific domains that boost analogous types of tilts. Finally, age-related increases in tilt were observed for males and females and were mediated by speed and g . Such a pattern supports cascade theories, which assume that speed and g facilitate the acquisition of specific abilities, which boost analogous forms of tilt. Future research should consider age and sex differences in tilt in different developmental periods (e.g., late adulthood) and at different ability levels (e.g., gifted and intellectually disabled).

Tilt refers to an ability pattern based on within subject differences in two distinct abilities (e.g., technical and academic), producing strength in one ability (technical) and weakness in another (academic). The current study was the first to examine nonlinear (quadratic) and interactive effects of age and processing speed on tilt in adolescence (13- to 17-years). According to magnification and investment theories, the effects of age and speed on tilt should accumulate over time, magnifying tilt levels and producing nonlinear and interactive effects. Effects of age and speed on tilt were estimated using test scores from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth ( N = 6969). Tilt was based on differences in technical and academic (math or verbal) scores, yielding tech tilt (technical > academic) and academic tilt (academic > technical). In general, quadratic and interactive effects of age and speed on tilt were negligible (explaining less than 1% of variance in tilt), whereas linear effects of age and speed on tilt were robust. Together, the results indicate that the effects of age and speed on tilt are primarily linear and additive (rather than nonlinear and multiplicative), with tilt levels changing at the same rate across all levels of age and speed. Exceptions to the overall pattern included quadratic effects of speed on academic tilt, indicating that faster speeds magnified academic tilt, and interaction effects of age and speed on math tilt, indicating that speed-tilt relations increased at older ages. These effects survived controls for g (general intelligence) and support magnification and speed theories, which assume that faster speeds accelerate the acquisition of specific abilities at older ages. No multiplicative effects were found for tech tilt, which is based on technical activities that are typically ignored in school, providing limited opportunities for development. Future research might examine quadratic and interactive effects of age and speed on tilt over the lifespan (20- to 80-years), when increases in g may inhibit the expression of specific abilities that produce tilt, producing accelerated declines in tilt.

Tilt refers to an ability profile and is based on within subject differences in two abilities, yielding strength in one ability (e.g., academic) and weakness in another ability (e.g., mechanical). The current study examined sex differences in the development of mechanical and spatial tilt. Tilt was based on mechanical and spatial abilities contrasted with academic abilities (math or verbal), yielding mechanical tilt (mechanical > academic), spatial tilt (spatial > academic), and academic tilt (academic > mechanical/spatial). Participants were 13- to 17-year-olds from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (N = 6969), and tilt scores were based on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. While sex differences in mechanical tilt (favoring males) increased with age, sex differences in spatial tilt did not, suggesting that sex differences are more sensitive to mechanical abilities. For males and females, academic tilt (math tilt or verbal tilt) increased with age, while mechanical and spatial tilt decreased with age. Finally, cascade models of mechanical tilt (which showed the largest sex differences) indicated that age-related increases in processing speed boosted g, which in turn influenced tilt. The results support vocational preference and investment theories. Such theories assume that, compared to females, males are more likely to invest in mechanical abilities and activities involving things (vs. people), boosting mechanical tilt. Future research might examine factors that influence sex differences in the development tilt such as developmental period (childhood vs. adulthood), ability level (intellectually disabled vs. gifted), and motivational variables (e.g., grit and self-efficacy).

This editorial describes (a) the history and founding of the new journal Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities (ICA); (b) the editorial principles of ICA; (c) a bibliometric analysis of publications on intelligence over time; and (d) the outlook for ICA and intelligence research. A key aim of ICA is to continue the Detterman-Haier tradition of editing and publication by providing unbiased reviews of intelligence research; avoiding political debates about issues that are a matter of opinion as opposed to scientific evidence; and adjudicating scientific claims based on scientific merit, defined as strength of argument, analytical approach, validity of results, the weight of evidence, and clarity of exposition.