Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert views

The current study examines the views of experts in the science of mental abilities about the primacy and uniqueness of g and the social implications of ability testing, and compares their responses to the views of a group of non-expert psychologists. Results indicate expert consensus that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. Experts did not reach consensus on issues such as the degree to which specific abilities or combinations of non-cognitive traits can yield predictive validities comparable to that of g alone, the predictive validity of g for non-technical work outcomes (e.g., contextual performance), and the nature and implications of race differences in intelligence. Second, a comparison of responses from experts and a group of applied psychologists reveals several discrepant beliefs between these groups, primarily dealing with the primacy of g, susceptibility of ability tests to racial bias, and the potential value of ability testing. Results are discussed in terms of directions for future research and shared responsibility for various groups of researchers to enhance dissemination of research to relevant audiences.