Abstract
AbstractStudies on sociodemographic data and crystallized intelligence have often struggled to recruit enough participants to achieve sufficient validity. However, the advent of the internet now allows this problem to be solved through the creation of megastudies. Yet, this methodology so far has only been used in studies on vocabulary size, while general knowledge, another key component of crystallized intelligence, remains unexamined. In the present study, regression models were used to examine the impact of sociodemographic variables—gender, age, years of study and socioeconomic status—on general knowledge scores. The sample comprised 48,234 participants, each of whom answered 60 general knowledge questions, their data being fully available online. Men were found to score higher than women in general knowledge. Years of study and socioeconomic status acted as strong and weak positive predictors, respectively. Age acted as a strong positive predictor until the age of 50, where it became progressively detrimental. These results are discussed relative to other studies on crystallized intelligence, highlighting the need to study each of its components individually.
Funder
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference43 articles.
1. Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22(2), 227-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1
2. Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.797
3. Adler, N., & Stewart, J. (2007). The MacArthur scale of subjective social status. MacArthur Research Network on SES & Health. http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/Research/Psychosocial/subjective.php.
4. Aguasvivas, J., Carreiras, M., Brysbaert, M., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2020). How do Spanish speakers read words? Insights from a crowdsourced lexical decision megastudy. Behavior Research Methods, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01357-9
5. Bates, D., Maechler, D., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献