Explain what the “limited conceptualization” of g means, and the implications it has for applicants and HR managers.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Another criticism is that g represents a limited conceptualization of intelligence because it does not include tacit knowledge (i.e., knowledge gained from everyday experience that has an implicit and unarticulated quality, often referred to as “learning by doing” or “professional intuition”) and practical intelligence (i.e., ability to find an optimal fit between oneself and the demands of the environment, often referred to as being “street smart” or having “common sense”) (Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Hedlund, 2002). Also, using a global g factor masks the predictive power of more specific (i.e., “second-stratum”) cognitive abilities: verbal aptitude, numerical aptitude, spatial aptitude, form perception, and clerical perception (Wee, Newman, & Joseph, 2014). For example, individuals with higher scores on verbal aptitude would be expected to demonstrate better performance in occupations that require this second-stratum ability (e.g., senior partner in a law firm) compared to, for example, numerical aptitude (e.g., a senior partner in an engineering firm). Related to the issue of predicting different types of performance is the finding that cognitive ability tests are better at predicting maximum as compared to typical performance (Marcus, Goffin, Johnston, & Rothstein, 2007). Moreover, scores on g-loaded tests can improve after retaking the same test several times, as we described in Chapter 7 (e.g., Van Iddekinge & Arnold, 2017). In other words, the factor underlying retest scores is less saturated with g and more associated with memory than the latent factor underlying initial test scores (Lievens, Reeve, & Heggestad, 2007), and a meta-analysis of 107 samples and 134,436 test takers revealed that the effects are larger when identical forms of the test are used and individuals receive coaching between test administrations (Hausknecht, Halpert, Di Patio, & Moriarty Gerrard, 2007). Finally, others have argued that g should be viewed as a starting point rather than an ending point, meaning that an overemphasis or sole reliance on g in selecting managers and employees is a basis for a flawed selection model (Goldstein, Zedeck, & Goldstein, 2002).