IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v99y2023ics0160289623000491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there a g in gunslinger? Cognitive predictors of firearms proficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Cucina, Jeffrey M.
  • Wilson, Kimberly J.
  • Walmsley, Philip T.
  • Votraw, Lisa M.
  • Hayes, Theodore L.

Abstract

This study addressed a gap in the research literature by evaluating the validity of general mental ability (g) and personality test scores for prediction of firearms proficiency via shooting range performance, an entirely objective task-based criterion. It was hypothesized that mental ability test scores would be positively related to firearms proficiency based on past research in related areas (e.g., g predicts skill acquisition and training performance) and conceptual similarities between firearms proficiency and cognitive tasks. Using 4 datasets with a combined sample size of 22,525 individuals, this hypothesis was confirmed: g had operational validities ranging from .162 to .188 and logical reasoning had operational validities ranging from .179 to .268 after correcting for range restriction and criterion unreliability. Mental ability test scores predicted an entirely psychomotor criterion task: use of firearms to hit targets at a pre-determined level of accuracy. Most of the validity appears to be attributable to g, but a post hoc analysis indicated that writing ability acted as a suppressor (i.e., the validity of g increased when writing ability was included in a regression model). Conscientiousness was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with firearms performance and emotional stability was hypothesized to have positive linear and quadratic relationships. In contrast, it was observed that conscientiousness had a negative operational validity (−.079) and emotional stability lacked validity relative to the firearms proficiency criterion. The implications for individual differences research and practice are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Cucina, Jeffrey M. & Wilson, Kimberly J. & Walmsley, Philip T. & Votraw, Lisa M. & Hayes, Theodore L., 2023. "Is there a g in gunslinger? Cognitive predictors of firearms proficiency," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:99:y:2023:i:c:s0160289623000491
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2023.101768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000491
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2023.101768?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ree, Malcolm James & Carretta, Thomas R. & Teachout, Mark S., 2015. "Pervasiveness of Dominant General Factors in Organizational Measurement," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 409-427, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bryan, Victoria M. & Mayer, John D., 2020. "A meta-analysis of the correlations among broad intelligences: Understanding their relations," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Ree, Malcolm James & Carretta, Thomas R., 2022. "Thirty years of research on general and specific abilities: Still not much more than g," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:99:y:2023:i:c:s0160289623000491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.