The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m moved Snyderman and Rothman (study) to The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book): Renaming (moving) the article to show that it is primarily about a 1988 book was supported during a recent AfD for this article, followed up by mor...
removing paragraph that violates content policies: condit's article does not mention s & r's study, while holhut's stuff seems to be self-published online and he does not cite s & r
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Expert-subject|Statistics|date=August 2010}}
{{Expert-subject|Statistics|date=August 2010}}
[[File:Snyderman-Rothman-1988.png|thumb|180px|The 1988 book describing the survey in detail]]
[[File:Snyderman-Rothman-1988.png|thumb|180px|The 1988 book describing the survey in detail]]
The '''Snyderman and Rothman study''' (original title: ''Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing'') is a 1987 publication by [[Smith College]] professor emeritus Stanley Rothman and [[Harvard]] researcher Mark Snyderman which claims to document liberal bias in media coverage of scientific findings regarding [[race and intelligence]]. In 1984 the pair used a multiple choice questionnaire to survey the opinions of 1020 psychologists, sociologists and educationalists in North American universities. Their report, enlarged into the book ''The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy'' (1988), was based on the 661 replies received. In the book the results of the questionnaire were supplemented by an analysis of the reporting of intelligence testing by the press and television in the US for the period 1969-1983, as well as an opinion poll of 207 journalists and 86 science editors on their attitudes to testing. There has been no agreement amongst academics on the significance of the findings of the survey.
'''The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy''' is a book published by [[Smith College]] professor emeritus Stanley Rothman and [[Harvard]] researcher Mark Snyderman in 1988. Claiming to document liberal bias in media coverage of scientific findings regarding [[IQ]], the book builds on a survey of the opinions of hundreds of North American psychologists, sociologists and educationalists conducted by the authors in 1984. The book includes also an analysis of the reporting on intelligence testing by the press and television in the US for the period 1969–1983, as well as an opinion poll of 207 journalists and 86 science editors on their views about IQ testing.


==Survey==
==Survey==
Line 80: Line 80:


[[Sociology|Sociologists]] such as [[Irving Horowitz]] and [[Peter Conrad (sociologist)|Peter Conrad]] have made comments on the role of the media. Writing partly in his capacity as managing editor of the publishing company, [[Transaction Publishers]], that had published the Snyderman-Rothman book and more recently a controversial book by hereditarian researcher [[J. Philippe Rushton]], {{harvtxt|Horowitz|1995}} pointed out that researchers into heredity and intelligence like Rothman "sought media attention as a mechanism for making their policy views known." {{harvtxt|Conrad|1997}} noted that Snyderman and Rothman echoed the claims of [[Richard Herrnstein]], another psychologist of the [[hereditarian]] school, in claiming that "the media, relative to the scientific experts surveyed, were overly critical of testing and the heritability of IQ and that it continually manifested an environmental bias in explanations of IQ differences between blacks and whites." Conrad on the contrary suggests that this has been the reaction of the press every time the hereditarian views have become the centre of media attention and that the resulting "avalanche of commentary pieces" has inadvertently promulgated the original message, giving it "unintentional credence".
[[Sociology|Sociologists]] such as [[Irving Horowitz]] and [[Peter Conrad (sociologist)|Peter Conrad]] have made comments on the role of the media. Writing partly in his capacity as managing editor of the publishing company, [[Transaction Publishers]], that had published the Snyderman-Rothman book and more recently a controversial book by hereditarian researcher [[J. Philippe Rushton]], {{harvtxt|Horowitz|1995}} pointed out that researchers into heredity and intelligence like Rothman "sought media attention as a mechanism for making their policy views known." {{harvtxt|Conrad|1997}} noted that Snyderman and Rothman echoed the claims of [[Richard Herrnstein]], another psychologist of the [[hereditarian]] school, in claiming that "the media, relative to the scientific experts surveyed, were overly critical of testing and the heritability of IQ and that it continually manifested an environmental bias in explanations of IQ differences between blacks and whites." Conrad on the contrary suggests that this has been the reaction of the press every time the hereditarian views have become the centre of media attention and that the resulting "avalanche of commentary pieces" has inadvertently promulgated the original message, giving it "unintentional credence".

Furthermore, research published in [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0009-9163 Clinical Genetics], an international journal of genetics and molecular medicine, suggests that propagation by the media of stories that suggest that heritable characteristics are significantly tied to race may further intrench racist ideas<ref>''Exploration of the impact of messages about genes and race on lay attitudes'' by CM Condita*, RL Parrottb, BR Batesc, J Bevand and PJ Achtere published in [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2004.00327.x?journalCode=cge Clinical Genetics Volume 66 Issue 5 Page 402 - November 2004]<blockquote>"Participants who received a message that specified either 'Whites' or 'Blacks' as the subject of the message demonstrated elevated levels of racism, genetic basis for racism, and one dimension of genetic discrimination as compared to those receiving a version of the message with no race specification or in a no-message control condition."</blockquote></ref>. Regardless of the spin placed on such stories, the choice by media professionals to legitimize racial research by publishing articles and presenting such questions as unresolved "debates<ref>''Challenging the Racist Science of "The Bell Curve"'' by Randolph T. Holhut (Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader")<blockquote>Murray and Herrnstein claimed that the IQs of blacks are 15 points lower than whites, a claim that most of the mainstream media has treated as fact. </blockquote></ref>" seem to demonstrate a bias that, far from being "liberal," is more conservative in character.


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 18:52, 27 August 2010

The 1988 book describing the survey in detail

The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy is a book published by Smith College professor emeritus Stanley Rothman and Harvard researcher Mark Snyderman in 1988. Claiming to document liberal bias in media coverage of scientific findings regarding IQ, the book builds on a survey of the opinions of hundreds of North American psychologists, sociologists and educationalists conducted by the authors in 1984. The book includes also an analysis of the reporting on intelligence testing by the press and television in the US for the period 1969–1983, as well as an opinion poll of 207 journalists and 86 science editors on their views about IQ testing.

Survey

Snyderman and Rothman originally conducted their survey in 1984 because they felt that intelligence testing had been portrayed in the media as being in direct opposition to egalitarianism. They described the IQ controversy in terms of two conflicting sets of values in the US: egalitarianism, favouring equal opportunity, and meritocracy, favouring individual differences. In the 1960s, in the light of the civil rights movement, an environmental view of intelligence differences, de-emphasizing heritability, had become prevalent. In their view equality of opportunity had been transformed to mean equality of outcome, to the detriment of more able individuals. As they wrote:[1][2]

The danger inherent in egalitarianism is that a philosophy of human rights may be extrapolated into a theory of human nature. That individuals should be treated equally does not mean that all individuals are equal. Whether as a result of accidents of birth and environment, or through strength of will, people differ in abilities of all sorts.

As a consequence, they wrote that attitudes to intelligence testing had changed:[3][4]

Intelligence and aptitude tests have fallen into disfavor among the literate public, as have attempts to define intelligence. However intelligence is defined, the suggestion that individual differences in intelligence, like individual capacities for painting or composing, may have a genetic component has become anathema.

Snyderman and Rothman claimed that the media had misrepresented the views of experts, so that the public now believed that it was impossible to define intelligence, that IQ or aptitude tests were outmoded and that environmentalism and hereditarianism were incompatible points of view. As they wrote:[5][6]

Most significantly, the literate and informed public today is persuaded that the majority of experts in the field believe it is impossible to adequately define intelligence, that intelligence tests do not measure anything that is relevant to life performance... It appears from book reviews in popular journals and from newspaper and television coverage of IQ issues that such are the views of the vast majority of experts who study questions of intelligence and intelligence testing.

The purpose of their survey was to challenge what they considered to be the media's portrayal of intelligence testing. Their study had three parts:[7]

  • A questionnaire with 48 multiple choice questions sent to 1020 academics in 1984 (661 replies), reported in Snyderman & Rothman (1987)
  • An analysis of all coverage of issues related to intelligence tests in major US print and television news sources (1969-1983) conducted by 9 trained graduate students
  • An opinion poll of 207 journalists concerning their attitudes to intelligence and aptitude tests (119 replies); 86 editors of popular science magazines were also polled (50 replies)

The 1020 experts were chosen randomly from the following professional bodies:

The 16 page questionnaire had 48 multiple choice questions spread over 6 different sections:[8]

  • The nature of intelligence (1-10)
  • The heritability of intelligence (11-14)
  • Race, class and cultural differences in IQ (15-23)
  • The use of intelligence testing (24-33)
  • Professional activities and involvement with intelligence testing (34-40)
  • Personal and social background (41-48)

Findings

In their analysis of the survey results, Snyderman and Rothman state that the experts who described themselves as agreeing with the "controversial" views of Arthur Jensen did so only on the understanding that their identity would remain unknown in the published report. This was due, claim the authors, to fears of suffering the same kind of castigation experienced by Jensen for publicly expressing views on the correlation between race and intelligence which are privately held in the wider academic community.[9] According to Snyderman and Rothman, this contrasts greatly with the coverage of these views as represented in the media, where the reader is led to draw the conclusion that "only a few maverick 'experts' support the view that genetic variation plays a significant role in individual or group difference, while the vast majority of experts believe that such differences are purely the result of environmental factors."[10]

Snyderman and Rothman discovered that experts were in agreement about the nature of intelligence:[11]

On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy.

Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.

The study also revealed that the majority (55%) of surveyed experts believed that genetic factors also help to explain socioeconomic differences in IQ. Respondents on average identified themselves as slightly left of center politically, but political and social opinions accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses.

The study found that psychologists were not in agreement about the heritability of intelligence; almost all felt that it played a substantial role but half of those that felt qualified to reply in this section agreed that the there was not enough evidence to estimate heritability accurately. The 214 who thought there was enough evidence gave an average estimate of .596 for the US white population and .57 for the US black population.

Snyderman and Rothman concluded that media reports often either erroneously reported that most experts believe that the genetic contribution to IQ is absolute (~100% heritability) or that most experts believe that genetics plays no role at all (~0% heritability). News reports made mistakes of the same proportion when reporting the expert view on the contribution of genetics to racial-ethnic group differences in IQ. News reports also tended to cite the opinions of only very few experts, such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and William Shockley, to whom they often erroneously attributed a variety of views, including that Blacks are 'inherently or innately inferior' to Whites, that their views have adverse implication for education policy or adverse political implications, or that they are racist.[12] Snyderman and Rothman speculated that the misattribution of views to these individuals is fueled by the attacks made on them by public intellectuals, such as psychologist Leon Kamin. As they wrote:[13]

With the possible exception of Leon Kamin, we can be confident that none of the experts cited here actually believes that genes play no role in individual differences in IQ, but their positions are represented as such by newspapers that divide the world into hereditarians and environmentalists, and often fail to clarify for their readers that the argument is over the degree of genetic influence, not its existence or exclusive control. Because newspaper journalists either cannot or do not want to understand this distinction, readers will not either.

The survey confirmed that IQ tests had been misused but that neverthless most respondents strongly supported their continued use:[14][15]

Our expert sample agrees that test misuse in elementary and secondary schools is prevalent...but they believe that test use should continue...It is also the case that almost half of all experts believe test misuse to be an infrequent phenomenon. Yet in all the news media coverage of test misuse, there is virtually no indication that misuse is not highly prevalent or that it does not completely invalidate test use.

Those replying had liberal tendencies politically, contrary to their portrayal in the media.

Response and criticism

A long review by Silverman (1991) in the journal Gifted Child Quarterly described the book as important in the field of gifted education. She welcomed its endorsement of IQ tests, contrary to the press's indictment of intelligence testing, and praised it for affirming the heritability of intelligence in individuals from parents to children. She pointed out that, "Since Mark Snyderman has been a collaborator with Richard Herrnstein, the book may have been written partially in defense of Herrnstein, who was often barred from speaking engagements because of his views on the heritability of IQ," before concluding that, "Armed with the support of the psychological community that this book provides, we will be able to take an informed stand in attempting to preserve gifted education in the months ahead."

Another review by Lennon (1990) in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science was less positive, describing the authors as giving "overwhelming approval" for Jensen's position and the book as "comprehensive and informative" on the controversy over IQ tests but also as "insensitive, irresponsible, and dangerous". He took particular issue with the last chapter where the authors picked out the "real culprits" in the controversy during the 1970s and 1980s: "the liberal press, a biased and uninformed 'elite'; media personalities, seekers of sensational topics only; universities and academics; environmentalists; civil rights activists who dared to question and confront the societal implementation of the in-place value system; and social service professionals who are responsible for 'liberal and cosmopolitan ideas'." He queried their assertion that a positive review in the press could sometimes provide "a more significant source of recognition and reward than that offered by professional journals."

File:Snyderman-rothman-opinion.PNG
Graph showing the results of Snyderman & Rothman's study on the views of IQ experts, science editors, and journalists on racial differences in IQ.

The findings were welcomed by psychologists and educationalists engaged in hereditarian research, such as Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, Linda Gottfredson and Robert A. Gordon. As Gottfredson (2005) relates, even Jensen himself was surprised by the findings. Eysenck (1994) saw them as a vindication that his writings in the 1970s had been in "complete accord with orthodoxy". Gordon (1992) wrote that "the survey dispels once and for all the media fiction that researchers like Jensen are outside of the mainstream because they examine such an impolitic hypothesis." Gottfredson (1994) suggested that the findings confirmed a systematic and ongoing attempt in the media and academia to promote the "egalitarian fiction" and "scientific fraud" that intelligence differences are entirely due to environmental causes.[16]

Some commentators have been more incredulous, particularly about the single question concerning race and intelligence, "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was purely "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it "due entirely due to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation". Jencks & Phillips (1998) have pointed out that it was unclear to them how many of those who replied "both" would have agreed with them that genetics did not play a large role; it was also unclear to them whether those responding were familiar with the literature on the subject.[17] Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2006), responding to Donald Templer's citation of the same question in his comments on one of their earlier papers, stated that they did not give "much credence" to the survey.[18]

Sociologists such as Irving Horowitz and Peter Conrad have made comments on the role of the media. Writing partly in his capacity as managing editor of the publishing company, Transaction Publishers, that had published the Snyderman-Rothman book and more recently a controversial book by hereditarian researcher J. Philippe Rushton, Horowitz (1995) pointed out that researchers into heredity and intelligence like Rothman "sought media attention as a mechanism for making their policy views known." Conrad (1997) noted that Snyderman and Rothman echoed the claims of Richard Herrnstein, another psychologist of the hereditarian school, in claiming that "the media, relative to the scientific experts surveyed, were overly critical of testing and the heritability of IQ and that it continually manifested an environmental bias in explanations of IQ differences between blacks and whites." Conrad on the contrary suggests that this has been the reaction of the press every time the hereditarian views have become the centre of media attention and that the resulting "avalanche of commentary pieces" has inadvertently promulgated the original message, giving it "unintentional credence".

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Silverman 1991, p. 153
  2. ^ Snyderman & Rothman 1988, p. 32
  3. ^ Silverman 1991, p. 153
  4. ^ Snyderman & Rothman 1988, p. 250
  5. ^ __harvnb|Silverman|1991|p=153}}
  6. ^ Snyderman & Rothman 1988, p. 250
  7. ^ Silverman 1991, p. 153-154
  8. ^ Snyderman & Rothman, p. 291-301, Appendix F, facsimile of 1984 questionnaire
  9. ^ Gottfredson 1995, p. 97-98
  10. ^ Snyderman & Rothman (1987:255), cited in Eysenck (1994:66).
  11. ^ Silverman 1991, p. 250
  12. ^ Snyderman & Rothman 1987
  13. ^ Snyderman & Rothman 1988, p. 217
  14. ^ Silverman 1991, p. 155
  15. ^ Snyderman & Rothman 1988, p. 211
  16. ^ See:
  17. ^ Jencks & Phillips 1998
  18. ^ See:

References

  • Conrad, Peter (1997), "Public Eyes and Private Genes: Historical Frames, News Constructions, and Social Problems (presidential address)", Social Problems, 44: 139–154 (also available at jstor)
  • Eysenck, Hans J. (1994), Media vs. Reality?, Social Scientists Meet the Media (eds. C. Haslam, Cheryl; A. Bryman, Routledge, pp. 65–74, ISBN 0-203-41859
  • Eysenck, Hans J. (2000), Intelligence: A New Look, Transaction Publishers, ISBN 1-56000-360-X
  • Ferguson, Ronald F. (2005). Teacher' Perception and Expectations and the Black-White Test Score Gap in: Fashola, Olatokunbo S. Educating African American Males: Voices From the Field pp. 79–128. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press (Sage). ISBN 1-4129-1422-7.
  • Gordon, Robert A. (1992), "Letter, June 15", New York Magazine
  • Gottfredson, Linda S. (1994), "Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud" (PDF), Society, 31: 53–59
  • Gottfredson, Linda S. (1995), The Egalitarian Fiction, Fraud and Fallible Judgment: Varieties of Deception in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (eds. J. Hennessy; N.J. Pallone), Transaction Publishers, pp. 95–108, ISBN 1-56000-813-X
  • Gottfredson, Linda S. (2005), Suppressing Intelligence Research: Hurting Those We Intend to Help (PDF), Destructive trends in mental health: the well-intentioned path to harm (eds. R. H. Wright & N. A. Cummings), Routledge, p. 155-185, ISBN 0415950864
  • Gottfredson, Linda S. (2005a), "What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11: 311–319
  • Horowitz, Irving Louis (1995), "The Rushton File: Racial Comparisons and Media Passions" (PDF), Society, 32: 7–17
  • Jencks, Christopher; Phillips, Meredith (1998), The black-white test score gap, Brookings Institution Press, ISBN 0815746091
  • Kouyate, Malick; Taylor, Jerome (2003). Achievement Gap Between Black and White Students: Theoretical Analysis with Recommendations for Remedy in: Bernal, Guillermo; Burlew, A. K.; Leong, F. T. L.; Trimble, Joseph E. Handbook of Racial and Ethnic Minority Psychology. pp. 327–356. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-1965-1.
  • Lennon, John J. (1990), "Review: The I. Q. Controversy: The Media and Public Policy by Mark Snyderman; Stanley Rothman" (PDF), Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 511: 212–213
  • Lieberman, Myron (1993). Public Education: An Autopsy. Harvard: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-72232-9.
  • Lynn, Richard (1995). Cross-Cultural Differences in Intelligence and Personality in: Saklofske, Donald H.; Zeidner, Moshe International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence. pp. 107–124. New York: Plenum Press. ISBN 0-306-44749-5.
  • Miele, Frank (2002), Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen, Westview Press, ISBN 0-8133-4274-0
  • Rothman, Stanley (1990). Journalists, Broadcasters, Scientific Experts and Public Opinion in: Minerva, Volume 28, Number 2, June, 1990. Netherlands: Springer. pp. 117–133.
  • Silverman, Linda Kreger (1991), "Review of The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy", Gifted Child Quarterly, 35: 153–156
  • Snyderman, M.; Rothman, S. (1987), "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing", American Psychologist, 42: 137–144
  • Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley (1990). The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0-88738-151-0.
  • Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K. (2006), "Racing toward the finish line", American Psychologist, 61: 178–179
  • Tucker, William H. (1996), The Science and Politics of Racial Research, University of Illinois Press, ISBN 9780252065606
  • Tucker, William H. (2002), The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund, University of Illinois Press, ISBN 0252027620
  • Winston, Andrew (1996), "The context of correctness: A comment on Rushton" (PDF), Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 5: 231–250
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy&oldid=381358018"