Socioeconomic differences and fairness.

The fairness of a test is also a matter of concern. All intelligence testing assume equivalence of knowledge in cultural groups and the verbal skills learned typically in an educational environment. However, there are wide differences in educational environments between educational systems that are rooted largely in socioeconomic differences within countries, and of course these differences are magnified between cultural groups. A meta-analysis of 197 separate studies examined the relationship of affluence (measured by expenditures on education) and performance on intelligence tests (Van de Vijver, 1997). The results showed a positive relationship between affluence and performance in various cultural groups. This results would suggest that intelligence performance is really primarily a result of educational differences and opportunities and not biological inheritance. For example the inductive reasoning that is embedded in intelligence tests is largely a consequence of similar educational inductive processes. The relationship between education and intelligence test results is also supported by Segall et al (1999). It should be obvious that education as determined by socioeconomic class produce more familiarity with the content of intelligence tests and therefore higher scores.

The scores of intelligence tests are correlated positively with socioeconomic status (Neiser, Boodoo, Bouchard, Boykin, Brody, Ceci, Halpern, Loehlin, Perloff, Sternberg, & Urbina , 1991 ). In general results show that the higher the socioeconomic status the higher the scores on intelligence tests. Herrnstein and Murray tries to turn this relationship upside down by claiming high intelligence determine socioeconomic status. However, there is no way to determine the causal relationship from correlational studies. Since we have seen elsewhere that intelligence can be improved over a single generation the causal direction seem more likely from the contextual features of the socioeconomic environment with those who have access to educational opportunities and other resources scoring high on intelligence tests.

All these factors are intertwined. For example the family has also been isolated as a factor affecting intelligence. It seems obvious that affluent families offer better and more stimulating experiences to a growing child having a positive influence on intellectual development. It is equally obvious that the positive stimulation is basically a socioeconomic contribution that provides the means from which middle class families can provide better opportunities, whereas poor families just struggle to survive (Shiraev, 1988). Socioeconomic factors in intelligence are a matter of no small moment in a world beset with economic crises and falling living standards.

Intelligence tests are not unbiased, but benefit certain cultural groups who are familiar with the vocabulary used. Some items used in intelligence tests may only be familiar to certain economic classes or racial groups and therefore give an unfair advantage to those with an appropriate schooling. Although in most research reports the advantage is given to Americans of European background and Asian respondents, in fact this primacy is reversed in a vocabulary test utilizing words familiar only to the Black community. The dependence of test results on the sociocultural context is shown convincingly when Black kids obtained a score of 87 out of a 100 correct responses, but the white children’s mean score was 51 on the test based on Black vocabulary. The Black kids did better, because the words were relevant to the daily experience of Black youth (Hayles, 1991). Since most verbal intelligence tests contain information on knowledge generally known in the dominant culture they give advantage to those who are familiar with such information. However, this information is not available on an equivalent basis, but is to some extent specific to cultural groups. Intelligence tests may predict success, but they do not necessarily measure intelligence since that can never be divided from cultural content.

Further, if intelligence is fixed and stable as assumed by Jensen one could not expect much change over time. After all that is the argument against compensatory educational programs for the disadvantaged. However, Flynn (1999) found in his cross-national study (from fourteen countries) that increases in intelligence performance occurred in all countries. The results showed an increase in 15 IQ points over the span of a single generation suggesting the intelligence is not fixed, but rather malleable to educational improvement and may in fact largely measure educational efforts. This result is also supported by the Van de Vijver study where the author showed that the scale of differences between groups was greater in international as compared to national studies. The explanation seems straight forward that when participants are compared within a country they share similar acculturation experiences and similar education. The argument that phenotypical “race” is responsible for intelligence test differences are further undermined from studies that examine the effects of social class. In some studies the eco-cultural environment trumps “race” as poor whites living in southern (and poorer) United States scored lower than Blacks living in northern regions (Blau, 1981).

Also, the racism embedded in traditional American society produce anticipation of failure on the part of minority respondents. Related to the priming studies previously discussed, priming can also produce “stereotypic threat “, the threat perceived by minorities that others will stereotype their responses and that they therefore develop self-expectations of poor performance that affect their actual test results (Steele, 1998). For example when Black students were asked to record their racial identification on a survey of demographic questions prior to taking an intelligence test they performed worse compared to Black students that were not primed about their race. This result suggests that broad racial prejudice in regard to intellectual performance is also internalized by minorities, preventing them from performing at their real capacity. Ogbu (1994) stated that negative testing attitudes, and feelings of hopelessness are frequently present in students from deprived communities. Their exposure to the negative stereotypes held by the majority community combined with these personal disposition factors resulted in lowering the intelligence scores of Afro-Americans and other deprived groups in the U.S. Likewise Aboriginal children typically score lower that children with European background in Australia. However, when the playing field is level and Aboriginal children live by white children (and therefore share the same eco-cultural context) their scores are very similar (Lacey, 1971).

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 752