IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v92y2022ics0160289622000332.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effort impacts IQ test scores in a minor way: A multi-study investigation with healthy adult volunteers

Author

Listed:
  • Bates, Timothy C.
  • Gignac, Gilles E.

Abstract

Test motivation has been suggested to strongly influence low-stakes intelligence scores, with for instance, a recent meta-analysis of monetary incentive effects suggesting an average 9.6 IQ point impact (d = 0.64). Effects of such magnitude would have important implications for the predictive validity of intelligence tests. We report six studies (N = 4208) investigating the association and potential causal link of effort on cognitive performance. In three tests of the association of motivation with cognitive test scores we find a positive, but modest linear association of scores with reported effort (N = 3007: r ~ 0.28). In three randomized control tests of the effects of monetary incentive on test scores (total N = 1201), incentive effects were statistically non-significant in each study, showed no dose dependency, and jointly indicated an effect one quarter the size previously estimated (d = 0.166). These results suggest that, in neurotypical adults, individual differences in test motivation have, on average, a negligible influence on intelligence test performance. (≈ 2.5 IQ points). The association between test motivation and test performance likely partly reflects differences in ability, and subjective effort partly reflects outcome expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Bates, Timothy C. & Gignac, Gilles E., 2022. "Effort impacts IQ test scores in a minor way: A multi-study investigation with healthy adult volunteers," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:92:y:2022:i:c:s0160289622000332
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2022.101652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289622000332
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2022.101652?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. Sommer, Markus & Arendasy, Martin E. & Punter, Joachim Fritz & Feldhammer-Kahr, Martina & Rieder, Anita, 2019. "Do individual differences in test-takers' appraisal of admission testing compromise measurement fairness?," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 16-29.
    2. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.
    3. Tim Kautz & James J. Heckman & Ron Diris & Bas ter Weel & Lex Borghans, 2014. "Fostering and Measuring Skills: Improving Cognitive and Non-cognitive Skills to Promote Lifetime Success," OECD Education Working Papers 110, OECD Publishing.
    4. Gignac, Gilles E. & Bartulovich, Asher & Salleo, Emilee, 2019. "Maximum effort may not be required for valid intelligence test score interpretations," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 73-84.
    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. Elizabeth M. Caucutt & Lance Lochner & Youngmin Park, 2017. "Correlation, Consumption, Confusion, or Constraints: Why Do Poor Children Perform so Poorly?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(1), pages 102-147, January.
    2. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2021. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9033, CESifo.
    3. Fabian Kosse & Thomas Deckers & Pia Pinger & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Armin Falk, 2020. "The Formation of Prosociality: Causal Evidence on the Role of Social Environment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(2), pages 434-467.
    4. Matthijs J. Verhulst & Anne-Françoise Rutkowski, 2018. "Decision-Making in the Police Work Force: Affordances Explained in Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 827-852, October.
    5. Lindsey Macmillan & Emma Tominey, 2023. "Parental inputs and socio-economic gaps in early child development," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 36(3), pages 1513-1543, July.
    6. Steven Kachelmeier & Kristy Towry, 2005. "The Limitations of Experimental Design: A Case Study Involving Monetary Incentive Effects in Laboratory Markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 21-33, April.
    7. Jia Wu & Junsen Zhang, 2017. "The Effect of Parental Absence on Child Development in Rural China," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 12(1), pages 117-134, January.
    8. Marcus Adam, 2018. "The Role of Human Resource Management (HRM) for the Implementation of Sustainable Product-Service Systems (PSS)—An Analysis of Fashion Retailers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-27, July.
    9. Pastore, Chiara & Jones, Andrew M., 2023. "Human capital consequences of missing out on a grammar school education," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    10. Sun-Moon Jung & Jae Yong Shin, 2022. "Social Performance Incentives in Mission-Driven Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7631-7657, October.
    11. Jun Wang & Qihui Chen & Gang Chen & Yingxiang Li & Guoshu Kong & Chen Zhu, 2020. "What is creating the height premium? New evidence from a Mendelian randomization analysis in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, April.
    12. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    13. Deborah A. Cobb-Clark & Nicolás Salamanca & Anna Zhu, 2019. "Parenting style as an investment in human development," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1315-1352, October.
    14. Kerstin Grosch & Simone Haeckl & Martin G. Kocher, 2022. "Closing the Gender STEM Gap - A Large-Scale Randomized-Controlled Trial in Elementary Schools," CESifo Working Paper Series 9907, CESifo.
    15. Pablo Lavado & Nelson Oviedo & Hernán Ruffo, 2016. "Destruction of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills in Adulthood," Working Papers 16-07, Centro de Investigación, Universidad del Pacífico.
    16. Seul-Ki Kim & Young-Chul Kim, 2021. "Coed vs Single-Sex Schooling: An Empirical Study on Mental Health Outcomes," Working Papers 2103, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    17. Thi Cam Tu Luong & Ann Jorissen & Ine Paeleman, 2019. "Performance Measurement for Sustainability: Does Firm Ownership Matter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-35, August.
    18. Breitkopf, Laura & Chowdhury, Shyamal & Priyam, Shambhavi & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Sutter, Matthias, 2024. "Do Economic Preferences of Children Predict Behavior?," IZA Discussion Papers 16834, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Laura Breitkopf & Shyamal Chowdhury & Shambhavi Priyam & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Matthias Sutter, 2024. "Do economic preferences of children predict behavior?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_09, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    20. Marty Stuebs & Li Sun, 2010. "Business Reputation and Labor Efficiency, Productivity, and Cost," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(2), pages 265-283, October.

    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:92:y:2022:i:c:s0160289622000332. 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.