Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T17:55:09.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negative Relationships between Abilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Donald M. Broverman  and
Edward L. Klaiber
Donald M. Broverman
Affiliation:
Clark University
Edward L. Klaiber
Affiliation:
Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abilities are usually assumed to exist in a “positive manifold.” Experimental manipulations of physiological variables, however, suggest that negative relationships exist between certain of the neural processes contributing to simple perceptual-motor vs. perceptual-restructuring tasks. First-order correlative evidence of this phenomenon cannot be obtained because the between-individual differences in general ability level tend to exceed the behavioral effects of the intra-individual opposition between neural processes. Also, since statistical removal of the “g” variance induces bipolarity in the remaining variance, the second-order negative correlations are necessarily regarded as artifactual. A combined correlational-experimental approach is suggested to overcome this difficulty.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 1969 , pp. 5 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This work was supported in part by the Dementia Praecox Research Project, Worcester State Hospital, and research grant HD 02557 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U. S. Public Health Service.

References

Broverman, D. M. Normative and ipsative measurement in psychology. Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broverman, D. M., Broverman, Inge K., Vogel, W., Palmer, R. D., & Klaiber, E. L. The automatization cognitive style and physical development. Child Development, 1964, 35, 1343–1359Google ScholarPubMed
Broverman, D. M., Klaiber, E. L., & Kobayashi, Y., Vogel, W. The roles of activation and inhibition in sex differences in cognitive abilities. Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, E. III, & Stone, G.. Re-evaluating focus of attention. In Uhr, L., Miller, J. G. (Eds.), Drugs and behavior. New York: Wiley & Sons. 1960. pp. 393–398Google Scholar
Carlton, P. L. Some effects of scopolamine, atropine, and amphetamine in three behavioral situations. Pharmacologist, 1961, 3, 60–60Google Scholar
Dorfman, R. L., & Shipley, R. A.. Androgens, 1956, New York: J. Wiley & SonsCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleishman, E. A.. Development of a behavior taxonomy for describing human tasks: a correlational-experimental approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 1–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gainer, W. L.. The ability of the WISC subtests to discriminate between boys and girls of average intelligence. California Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 13, 9–16Google Scholar
Hess, W. R.. Diencephalon, autonomic and extrapyramidal functions, 1954, New York: Grune & StrattonGoogle Scholar
Klaiber, E. L., Broverman, D. M., & Kobayashi, Y.. The automatization cognitive style, androgens, and monoamine oxidase. Psychopharmacologia, 1967, 11, 320–336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohs, S. C. Intelligence measurement, 1923, New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
MacMeeken, A. M. The intelligence of a representative group of Scottish children, 1939, London: University of London PressGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. The language development of the preschool child. University of Minnesota Institute of Child Welfare Monograph, 1930, 4, 174–174Google Scholar
McNemar, Q. The revision of the Stanford-Binet Scale: An analysis of the standardization data, 1942, Boston: Houghton MifflinGoogle Scholar
Miele, J. A. Sex differences in intelligence: the relationship of sex to intelligence as measured by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Dissertation Abstracts, 1958, 18, 2213–2213Google Scholar
Norman, R. D. Sex differences and other aspects of young superior adult performance on the Wechsler Bellevue. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17, 411–418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podell, J. E., & Phillips, L. A developmental analysis of cognition as observed in dimensions of Rorschach and objective test performance. Journal of Personality, 1959, 27, 439–463CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, J. The relation between test and person factors. Psychological Review, 1963, 70, 432–443CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samuels, F. Sex differences in reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 1943, 36, 594–603Google Scholar
Schneidler, G. R. & Paterson, D. G. Sex differences in clerical aptitude. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1942, 33, 303–309Google Scholar
Schnell, H. Sex differences in relation to stuttering: Part II. Journal of Speech Disorders, 1947, 12, 23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, S. Monoamine oxidase in control of brain serotonin and norepinephrine content. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1963, 107, 856–864Google ScholarPubMed
Stroop, J. R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935, 18, 643–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, J. M. Growth at adolecence, 2nd ed., Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1962Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Unitary abilities. Journal of General Psychology, 1934, 11, 126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. The vectors of mind, 1935, Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. A factorial study of perception, 1944, Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, T. W., Thurstone, L. L., & Strandskov, H. H.. A psychological study of twins. 2. Scores of one hundred and twenty-five pairs of twins on fifty-nine tests, 1955, Chapel Hill, N. C.: The Psychometric Laboratory, University of North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
Tiffin, J., & Asher, E. J.. The Purdue Pegboard: Norms and studies of reliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1948, 32, 234–247CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wada, J. A., Wrinch, J., Hill, D., McGeer, P. L., & McGeer, E. G.. Central aromatic amine levels and behavior. Archives of Neurology, 1963, 9, 81–89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale, 1955, New York: Psychological CorporationGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H. A. Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 1950, 19, 1–15Google ScholarPubMed
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A.. Psychological differentiation, 1962, New York: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar