H. J. Eysenck (March 4, 1916 - September 4, 1997) is a German-born British Psychologist, most famous for his criticism of psychotherapy (see Eysenck, 1957), his rigorous, measurement-based approach to the study of personality, and for his ability to translate psychological ideas for the popular press.
Influences
Student of: Burt
Students: Jensen
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations
Education
University College of Exeter, England, literature and history (summer, 1933)
University of Dijon, France, literature and history (a few months prior to entering London University)
London University, B.A. in psychology with first-class honors (1935-1938)
London University, Ph.D. in psychology (under Burt) (1940)
Career
Research psychologist, Mill Hill Emergency Hospital, London (1942-1946)
Senior research psychologist, Maudsley Hospital, London (1946-1950)
Founder, Psychology Department, University of London Institute of Psychiatry(1946); Department Chair (1950-1955); Professor (1955-1983); Professor Emeritus (1983-1997)
Founder, Journal of Personality and Individual Differences (1980)
Numerous awards, including: American Psychological Association (APA) Award for Distinguished Contributions to Science (1988); APA Presidential Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Psychology (1994); American Psychological Society William James Fellow Award (1994); APA Division of Clinical Psychology Centennial Award for Lifelong Contributions to Clinical Psychology (1996)
Definition of Intelligence
“If we can derive a model of the intellect, therefore, from the existing literature, it may be suggested that a combination of Spearman’s g, Thurstone’s primary abilities (grouped under mental processes and test material), and the break-down of the IQ into speed, persistence and error-checking, may be the best available at the moment (Eysenck, 1979, p. 193).”
Major Contributions
Highly influential proponent of rigorous, measurement-based approaches to personality research
Established science-based approaches to psychotherapy and clinical training
Defender of the hereditarian position; argued that racial differences in intelligence are partially attributable to genetic factors.
Author of dozens of books (for both academic and popular audiences), and more than 1000 journal articles
Ideas & Interests
From his early interests, it would have been difficult to predict that Hans Eysenck would eventually become one of the world’s most prolific and frequently cited psychologists. He was first attracted to the study of literature and history, and his entry into a psychology program in college was merely a concession to those in authority; he wanted to declare a major in physics, but he did not meet the requirements for admission established by the University of London. Although he was initially disenchanted with his psychology courses, he quickly learned to enjoy the subject (Milite, 2001).
Over the next 60 years, Eysenck published dozens of books and more than 1000 journal articles. His intellectual curiosity about psychological phenomena was wide-ranging. His publications covered an astonishing variety of topics, from personality and intelligence theories to homosexuality, paranormal phenomena, and the causes of smoking-related diseases. This breadth of interest was matched by the unusual depth of his contributions; perhaps no other scientist has contributed so substantially to so many areas of psychology (Mclaughlin, 2000). Eysenck is most famous for his criticism of psychotherapy (see Eysenck, 1957), his rigorous, measurement-based approach to the study of personality, and for his ability to translate psychological ideas for the popular press. His work on human intelligence is also notable. In 1969, Eysenck’s student Arthur Jensen published a controversial paper asserting that racial differences in intelligence test scores might have genetic origins (Jensen, 1969). Eysenck defended Jensen, and received much criticism in the ensuing controversy. Eysenck later published his own evidence that biological processes might be implicated in racial differences in intelligence (see Eysenck, 1971). By the time he wrote his 1990 autobiography, he had moderated his views to give more weight to environmental influences (Mclaughlin, 2000). Eyesenck was a proponent of the theory of human intelligence proposed by Donald Hebb and elaborated by Philip Vernon. Hebb called the biological substrate of human cognitive ability “Intelligence A.” When Intelligence A interacts with environmental influences, Intelligence B is generated. Vernon elaborated this view to include Intelligence C, which is what manifests on tests of cognitive ability. This distinction is important for the scientific study of intelligence; Intelligence B is essentially immeasurable due to the large number of confounding variables. Intelligence A is not a concrete “thing” that can be measured, and can only be approached through measures that yield an index of Intelligence C. Intelligence tests, however, are imperfect and vary to the degree that they reflect Intelligence A or B. Eysenck believed that culturally-bounded tests and tests of educational attainment are likely to capture Intelligence B, whereas physiological measures such as positron emission tomography (PET) and electroencephalography (EEG) held more potential as possible tools for capturing intelligence A (Jensen, 1994).
Selected Publications
Eysenck, H. J. (1957). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 319-324.
Eysenck, H. J. (1971). The IQ argument: Race, intelligence, and education. New York: Library Press.
Eysenck, H. J.(1979). The structure and measurement of intelligence. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Eysenck, H. J. (1982). A model for intelligence. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990/1997). Rebel with a cause: The autobiography of Hans Eysenck. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Eysenck, H. J. (1998). Intelligence: A new look. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
References
Eysenck, H. J. (1979). The structure and measurement of intelligence. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Farley, F. (2000). Hans J. Eysenck (1916-1997). American Psychologist, 55, 674-675.
Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33, 1-123.
Jensen, A. R. (1994). Eysenck, Hans J. (1916-). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
Mcloughlin, C. S. (2000). Eysenck, Hans Jurgen. In A. K. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol.3). (pp. 310-311). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Milite, G. A. (2001). Hans Juergen Eysenck. In B. Strickland (Ed.), The Gale encyclopedia of psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 238-239). New York: Gale Group.
intelltheory.com
On this blog i will explore genius and geniality concepts, talented child and adults, polymaths, multipotentialite, multipods and other similar denominations. Mostly, i would like to learn about the potential hidden within each of us.
Showing posts with label Cyril Burt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cyril Burt. Show all posts
Wednesday, 18 November 2015
Philip E. Vernon
Philip E. Vernon (1905-1987) is an Educational Psychologist who stated that intelligence it is the product of the interplay between genetic potentiality and environmental stimulation. He studied heredity and environment influences for any individual's intelligence .
Influences
Influenced by: Burt, Spearman
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations
Education
Cambridge University, B.A. with First Class Honours in physics, chemistry, physiology and psychology (1927)
St. John's College, Cambridge University, M.A. (1930); Ph.D (1931)
Postdoctoral fellowships at Yale and Harvard
University of London, DSc (1952)
University of Calgary, Honorary Doctor of Laws (1978)
Career
St. John’s College, Cambridge, research and teaching Fellow
Maudsley Hospital Child Guidance Clinic, London, psychologist
Jordan-Hill Training Centre, Glasgow, Head of psychology department
University of Glasgow, head of psychology department (appointed 1938)
Psychological Research Adviser to the Admiralty and War Office (WWII)
University of London Institute of Education, professor of educational psychology
University of London, professor of Psychology (appointed 1964)
University of Calgary, Alberta, Professor of Educational Psychology (appointed 1968)
Definition of Intelligence
“Intelligence A is the basic potentiality of the organism, whether animal or human, to learn and to adapt to its environment…Intelligence A is determined by the genes but is mediated mainly by the complexity and plasticity of the central nervous system…Intelligence B is the level of ability that a person actually shows in behavior—cleverness, the efficiency and complexity of perceptions, learning, thinking , and problem solving. This is not genetic…Rather, it is the product of the interplay between genetic potentiality and environmental stimulation…I have suggested that we should a third usage to Hebb’s Intelligence A and B, namely Intelligence C, which stands for the score or IQ obtained from a particular test (Vernon, 1979, pp. 10, 20).”
Major Contributions
Hierarchical group-factor theory of the structure of cognitive abilities
Author of 14 books and approximately 200 journal articles
Ideas & Interests
Philip Ewart Vernon’s contributions to the psychological literature were many and varied. His dissertation focused on the psychology of musical appreciation and auditory perception, but shortly after finishing his Ph.D. he began work with Harvard’s Gordon Allport on the study of expressive movement and the development of an instrument to measure personality-related values (Allport & Vernon, 1931; 1932). A revised edition of the Allport-Vernon Study of Values (SOV) is still widely used by psychologists more than 70 years after its initial publication (P. A. Vernon, 1994). Vernon’s interest in personality research remained strong throughout his career, but his work in intelligence and giftedness gradually gained precedence. He was a proponent of Donald Hebb’s theory of intelligence, which divided human intellectual ability into two categories: He called the biological substrate of human cognitive ability “Intelligence A.” When Intelligence A interacts with environmental influences, Intelligence B is generated. Vernon elaborated this definition to include Intelligence C, which is what manifests on tests of cognitive ability—the score or IQ obtained on a particular test. These distinctions are important for the scientific study of intelligence, and they were adopted by other researchers including the German-born British psychologist Hans Eysenck. Both theorists noted that Intelligence B is essentially immeasurable due to the large number of confounding variables. Intelligence A is not a concrete “thing” that can be measured, and can only be approached through measures that yield an index of Intelligence C. Intelligence tests, however, are imperfect and vary to the degree that they reflect Intelligence A or B (Jensen, 1994). Like many other prominent British intelligence theorists (e.g. Spearman and Burt), Vernon’s preferred research tool was factor analysis. In The Structure of Human Abilities (1950) Vernon presented his hierarchical group factor theory of the structure of human intellectual abilities. At the top of this hierarchy was Spearman’s general factor (g), which accounted for the largest source of the variance in intelligence. Below g were several major, minor and specific group factors. Because Vernon’s theory accounted for a general factor and group factors, it was seen as a reconciliation between Spearman’s two factor theory (which did not have group factors) and Thurstone’s multiple factor theory (which did not have a general factor.) In subsequent years, Vernon became interested in studying the relative contributions of heredity and environment, and he summarized his conclusions in two books: Intelligence and Cultural Environment (1969) and Intelligence: Heredity and Environment (1979). Although he acknowledged the pivotal role of environmental factors, Vernon’s research led him to conclude that approximately 60% of the variance in human intellectual ability is attributable to genetic contributions. He extended this argument to implicate genes in the observed racial differences in intelligence test scores (P.A. Vernon, 1994). This controversial line of research was pursued in future years by Hans Eysenck and his student Arthur Jensen.
Selected Publications
Vernon, P. E. (1940). The measurement of abilities. London: University of London Press.
Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (1960). Intelligence and attainment tests. New York: Philosophical Library, Inc.
Vernon, P. E. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (Ed.). (1970). Creativity: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Vernon, P. E. (1979). Intelligence: Heredity and environment. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Vernon, P. E. (Ed.). (1987). Speed of information processing and intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vernon, P. E., Adamson, G. & Vernon, D. F. (1977). The psychology and education of gifted children. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
References
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1931). Study of values: A scale for measuring the dominant interests n personality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1932). Studies in expressive movement. Ney York: Macmillan.
Biographical dictionary of psychology. (1997). New York: Routledge.
Jensen, A. R. (1994). Eysenck, Hans J. (1916-). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (1979). Intelligence: Heredity and environment. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Vernon, P. A. (1994). Vernon, Philip Ewart (1905-1987). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 1115- 1117). New York: Macmillan.
intelltheory.com
Influences
Influenced by: Burt, Spearman
Time Period: Contemporary Explorations
Education
Cambridge University, B.A. with First Class Honours in physics, chemistry, physiology and psychology (1927)
St. John's College, Cambridge University, M.A. (1930); Ph.D (1931)
Postdoctoral fellowships at Yale and Harvard
University of London, DSc (1952)
University of Calgary, Honorary Doctor of Laws (1978)
Career
St. John’s College, Cambridge, research and teaching Fellow
Maudsley Hospital Child Guidance Clinic, London, psychologist
Jordan-Hill Training Centre, Glasgow, Head of psychology department
University of Glasgow, head of psychology department (appointed 1938)
Psychological Research Adviser to the Admiralty and War Office (WWII)
University of London Institute of Education, professor of educational psychology
University of London, professor of Psychology (appointed 1964)
University of Calgary, Alberta, Professor of Educational Psychology (appointed 1968)
Definition of Intelligence
“Intelligence A is the basic potentiality of the organism, whether animal or human, to learn and to adapt to its environment…Intelligence A is determined by the genes but is mediated mainly by the complexity and plasticity of the central nervous system…Intelligence B is the level of ability that a person actually shows in behavior—cleverness, the efficiency and complexity of perceptions, learning, thinking , and problem solving. This is not genetic…Rather, it is the product of the interplay between genetic potentiality and environmental stimulation…I have suggested that we should a third usage to Hebb’s Intelligence A and B, namely Intelligence C, which stands for the score or IQ obtained from a particular test (Vernon, 1979, pp. 10, 20).”
Major Contributions
Hierarchical group-factor theory of the structure of cognitive abilities
Author of 14 books and approximately 200 journal articles
Ideas & Interests
Philip Ewart Vernon’s contributions to the psychological literature were many and varied. His dissertation focused on the psychology of musical appreciation and auditory perception, but shortly after finishing his Ph.D. he began work with Harvard’s Gordon Allport on the study of expressive movement and the development of an instrument to measure personality-related values (Allport & Vernon, 1931; 1932). A revised edition of the Allport-Vernon Study of Values (SOV) is still widely used by psychologists more than 70 years after its initial publication (P. A. Vernon, 1994). Vernon’s interest in personality research remained strong throughout his career, but his work in intelligence and giftedness gradually gained precedence. He was a proponent of Donald Hebb’s theory of intelligence, which divided human intellectual ability into two categories: He called the biological substrate of human cognitive ability “Intelligence A.” When Intelligence A interacts with environmental influences, Intelligence B is generated. Vernon elaborated this definition to include Intelligence C, which is what manifests on tests of cognitive ability—the score or IQ obtained on a particular test. These distinctions are important for the scientific study of intelligence, and they were adopted by other researchers including the German-born British psychologist Hans Eysenck. Both theorists noted that Intelligence B is essentially immeasurable due to the large number of confounding variables. Intelligence A is not a concrete “thing” that can be measured, and can only be approached through measures that yield an index of Intelligence C. Intelligence tests, however, are imperfect and vary to the degree that they reflect Intelligence A or B (Jensen, 1994). Like many other prominent British intelligence theorists (e.g. Spearman and Burt), Vernon’s preferred research tool was factor analysis. In The Structure of Human Abilities (1950) Vernon presented his hierarchical group factor theory of the structure of human intellectual abilities. At the top of this hierarchy was Spearman’s general factor (g), which accounted for the largest source of the variance in intelligence. Below g were several major, minor and specific group factors. Because Vernon’s theory accounted for a general factor and group factors, it was seen as a reconciliation between Spearman’s two factor theory (which did not have group factors) and Thurstone’s multiple factor theory (which did not have a general factor.) In subsequent years, Vernon became interested in studying the relative contributions of heredity and environment, and he summarized his conclusions in two books: Intelligence and Cultural Environment (1969) and Intelligence: Heredity and Environment (1979). Although he acknowledged the pivotal role of environmental factors, Vernon’s research led him to conclude that approximately 60% of the variance in human intellectual ability is attributable to genetic contributions. He extended this argument to implicate genes in the observed racial differences in intelligence test scores (P.A. Vernon, 1994). This controversial line of research was pursued in future years by Hans Eysenck and his student Arthur Jensen.
Selected Publications
Vernon, P. E. (1940). The measurement of abilities. London: University of London Press.
Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (1960). Intelligence and attainment tests. New York: Philosophical Library, Inc.
Vernon, P. E. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (Ed.). (1970). Creativity: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Vernon, P. E. (1979). Intelligence: Heredity and environment. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Vernon, P. E. (Ed.). (1987). Speed of information processing and intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vernon, P. E., Adamson, G. & Vernon, D. F. (1977). The psychology and education of gifted children. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
References
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1931). Study of values: A scale for measuring the dominant interests n personality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1932). Studies in expressive movement. Ney York: Macmillan.
Biographical dictionary of psychology. (1997). New York: Routledge.
Jensen, A. R. (1994). Eysenck, Hans J. (1916-). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (1969). Intelligence and cultural environment. London: Methuen.
Vernon, P. E. (1979). Intelligence: Heredity and environment. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Vernon, P. A. (1994). Vernon, Philip Ewart (1905-1987). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 1115- 1117). New York: Macmillan.
intelltheory.com
Wednesday, 11 November 2015
The Cyril Burt Affair
The Cyril Burt Affair
Until his death in 1971, the British educational psychologist Sir Cyril Burt was viewed as one of the most significant and influential educational psychologists of his time. Within a year of his death, however, the legitimacy of his research was being questioned. The questions began to turn into accusations, and by 1976 he was officially accused of fabricating data to prove that intelligence was inherited. The publication of Burt's official biography by Leslie Hearnshaw in 1979 seemed to seal Burt's fate by concluding that the charges of fraud were merited. However, the recent work of two independent researchers, Robert Joynson and Ronald Fletcher, has reopened the issue and raised doubts about the accusations of fraud.
Burt's Work
Cyril Lodowic Burt, born on March 3, 1883, was a leading figure in psychology during an exciting time when psychology was breaking away from philosophy and becoming a field of its own. Burt's research on factor analysis and the genetics of intelligence was groundbreaking, and helped to pave a new path for psychology. It is his work in these areas that led to the great controversy surrounding his name. Many researchers, including Galton, Pearson, Spearman and L. Thurstone were investigating the use of factor analysis in determining the components of human intelligence. Burt joined the discussion and adapted the new developments in statistical techniques to the study of genetic analysis of intelligence. Burt's most famous work on the genetics of intelligence involved the study of twins. In a series of papers published between 1943 and 1966 Burt concluded that heredity plays a much more prominent role in the development of intellectual ability than does the environment. Due to Burt's acclaimed reputation, his findings impacted both the international academic community and the local educational system within England.
The Accusations
At the time of his death in October of 1971, Cyril Burt was viewed as a esteemed and influential member of his profession. Within months of his death however, the Princeton psychologist Leon Kamin recognized and reported a number of flaws in Burt's research--particularly his research involving monozygotic twins who were reared apart. Although Kamin suspected the data were fraudulent, he did not immediately make a public condemnation of Burt's research; he simply concluded that the data were not worthy of scientific consideration. In 1974, Kamin published The Science and Politics of IQ, which denounced the hereditarian position and contained much criticism of Burt's work with monozygotic twins. Shortly before Kamin published his book, another American psychologist, Arthur Jensen, published a paper which also found fault with Burt's data. Ironically, Jensen was in favor of the hereditarian position. It is interesting that two researchers with radically different professional agendas independently arrived at many of the same conclusions. The first formal, public accusation of fraud against Cyril Burt came in 1976 from Dr. Oliver Gillie, the medical correspondent to the London Sunday Times. Gillie became suspicious of Burt's work after he read Kamin's The Science and Politics of IQ, and began to investigate. He set out to find two of Burt's research assistants: Miss Margaret Howard and Miss Jane Conway. Despite a thorough search, he was unable to locate either, and was forced to conclude that they were fictitious names. This fact, in conjunction with other findings, led Gillie to conclude that Burt had falsified his data. The article which appeared on the front page of the October 24, 1976 edition of the Times began with these lines
"The most sensational charge of scientific fraud this century is being leveled against Sir Cyril Burt. Leading scientists are convinced that Burt published false data and invented crucial facts to support his controversial theory that intelligence is largely inherited." (Gillie, 1976)
The Controversy
The primary source of concern voiced by both Kamin and Jensen was the suspicious consistency of the correlation coefficients for the intelligence test scores of the monozygotic twins in Burt's studies. In each study Burt reported sum totals for the twins he had studied so far. His original results were published in 1943. In 1955 he added 6 pairs of twins and reported results for a total of 21 sets of twins. Likewise in 1966 he reported the results for a total of 53 pairs. In each study Burt reported correlation coefficients indicating the similarity of intelligence scores for monozygotic twins who were reared apart. A high coefficient would indicate that the twins had similar intelligence scores. Since the twins were reared apart, a high correlation coefficient would also make a strong case for his hereditarian argument. In his studies Burt reported the following coefficients: 1943: r = .770; 1955: r = .771; 1966: r= .771. These correlation coefficients suggested a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence. One would expect to see greater variability among the coefficients when more sets of twins were added. Other critics later pointed out that it was unlikely that Burt had been able to find so many sets of monozygotic twins reared apart. His 1966 study involving 53 sets of twins was the largest twin study of the time. In 1955, Burt himself commented that it was unusual to find even 21 sets of subjects. Yet only eleven years later he had more than doubled his number of subjects, claiming that society held misconceptions about the frequency with which twins were reared in separate environments. Tucker (1997) examined the numbers of research subjects used in all of the twin studies conducted between 1922 and 1990 and found that no other study came close to having 53 sets of twins that would have satisfied Burt's conditions. The combination of all the twins in all the studies (who fit Burt's criteria) would barely sum to be 53! It did not take long after the official accusation was made by Gillie in the London Sunday Times for supporters of Burt to come forward. Among the first was H.J. Eysenck, who attacked Gillie's arguments and contended that the evidence provided thus far warranted a charge no stronger than carelessness. Several other supporters came forward, the most effective of whom was a former student of Burt's by the name of J. Cohen. Cohen addressed Gillie's claim that the two research assistants, Miss Howard and Miss Conway, did not exist. Cohen claimed that he remembered Miss Conway. In the middle of this controversy, Leslie Hearnshaw began writing Burt's official biography. Hearnshaw had great respect for Burt. He had even delivered an address at his memorial service. Hearnshaw was outraged at the accusations, and implored the academic community to delay judgment until he had finished the biography. Hearnshaw did not doubt about Burt's integrity, and intended to clear his name with the book. As Hearnshaw examined Burt's private records, distressing evidence became to accumulate and he was forced to report that the accusations were most likely true. The conclusions reached by Hearnshaw had a great impact on the academic community, but this was not the end of the debate. In the years since Hearnshaw published Burt's biography, other researchers have investigated the issue and have come out in support of Burt. Two such men are Robert Joynson and Ronald Fletcher. These researchers argue that Burt did not invent any of his twin data. They explain the large increase in the number of subjects by asserting that some of Burt's data had been lost during World War II. After Burt found it, it had taken him a long time to sort it out. They also believe that the research assistants were indeed real people, although it is doubtful that they actually used their real names. Joynson and Fletcher claim that Burt used pseudonyms when publishing, and contend that such behavior, while eccentric, does not constitute a moral or ethical violation.
Conclusions
Since the controversy around Cyril Burt's name is of great importance to the integrity of psychology and other research fields, it has drawn significant attention from the academic community as a whole. Many prominent individuals in psychology and related fields have examined the evidence on both sides, and the conclusions are mixed. Recently, senior fellows of the British Psychological Society campaigned to have Burt's case reheard so that a new verdict can be rendered. The Society agreed to reopen the case, causing some strong reactions on both sides of the debate. For now, Burt's reputation remains sullied, and his story reminds the field of psychology and academia in general of the importance of intellectual honesty.
References
Gillie, O. (1976, October 24).. Crucial data was faked by eminent psychologist. London: Sunday Times.
Hearnshaw, L. (1979). Cyril Burt: Psychologist. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Joynson, R. B. (1989). The Burt affair. New York: Routledge.
Kamin, L.J. (1974). The science and politics of IQ. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1995). Cyril Burt: Fraud or framed? New York: Oxford University Press.
Tucker, W. H. (1997). Re-reconsidering Burt: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 33(2) 145-162.
www.intelltheory.com
Until his death in 1971, the British educational psychologist Sir Cyril Burt was viewed as one of the most significant and influential educational psychologists of his time. Within a year of his death, however, the legitimacy of his research was being questioned. The questions began to turn into accusations, and by 1976 he was officially accused of fabricating data to prove that intelligence was inherited. The publication of Burt's official biography by Leslie Hearnshaw in 1979 seemed to seal Burt's fate by concluding that the charges of fraud were merited. However, the recent work of two independent researchers, Robert Joynson and Ronald Fletcher, has reopened the issue and raised doubts about the accusations of fraud.
Burt's Work
Cyril Lodowic Burt, born on March 3, 1883, was a leading figure in psychology during an exciting time when psychology was breaking away from philosophy and becoming a field of its own. Burt's research on factor analysis and the genetics of intelligence was groundbreaking, and helped to pave a new path for psychology. It is his work in these areas that led to the great controversy surrounding his name. Many researchers, including Galton, Pearson, Spearman and L. Thurstone were investigating the use of factor analysis in determining the components of human intelligence. Burt joined the discussion and adapted the new developments in statistical techniques to the study of genetic analysis of intelligence. Burt's most famous work on the genetics of intelligence involved the study of twins. In a series of papers published between 1943 and 1966 Burt concluded that heredity plays a much more prominent role in the development of intellectual ability than does the environment. Due to Burt's acclaimed reputation, his findings impacted both the international academic community and the local educational system within England.
The Accusations
At the time of his death in October of 1971, Cyril Burt was viewed as a esteemed and influential member of his profession. Within months of his death however, the Princeton psychologist Leon Kamin recognized and reported a number of flaws in Burt's research--particularly his research involving monozygotic twins who were reared apart. Although Kamin suspected the data were fraudulent, he did not immediately make a public condemnation of Burt's research; he simply concluded that the data were not worthy of scientific consideration. In 1974, Kamin published The Science and Politics of IQ, which denounced the hereditarian position and contained much criticism of Burt's work with monozygotic twins. Shortly before Kamin published his book, another American psychologist, Arthur Jensen, published a paper which also found fault with Burt's data. Ironically, Jensen was in favor of the hereditarian position. It is interesting that two researchers with radically different professional agendas independently arrived at many of the same conclusions. The first formal, public accusation of fraud against Cyril Burt came in 1976 from Dr. Oliver Gillie, the medical correspondent to the London Sunday Times. Gillie became suspicious of Burt's work after he read Kamin's The Science and Politics of IQ, and began to investigate. He set out to find two of Burt's research assistants: Miss Margaret Howard and Miss Jane Conway. Despite a thorough search, he was unable to locate either, and was forced to conclude that they were fictitious names. This fact, in conjunction with other findings, led Gillie to conclude that Burt had falsified his data. The article which appeared on the front page of the October 24, 1976 edition of the Times began with these lines
"The most sensational charge of scientific fraud this century is being leveled against Sir Cyril Burt. Leading scientists are convinced that Burt published false data and invented crucial facts to support his controversial theory that intelligence is largely inherited." (Gillie, 1976)
The Controversy
The primary source of concern voiced by both Kamin and Jensen was the suspicious consistency of the correlation coefficients for the intelligence test scores of the monozygotic twins in Burt's studies. In each study Burt reported sum totals for the twins he had studied so far. His original results were published in 1943. In 1955 he added 6 pairs of twins and reported results for a total of 21 sets of twins. Likewise in 1966 he reported the results for a total of 53 pairs. In each study Burt reported correlation coefficients indicating the similarity of intelligence scores for monozygotic twins who were reared apart. A high coefficient would indicate that the twins had similar intelligence scores. Since the twins were reared apart, a high correlation coefficient would also make a strong case for his hereditarian argument. In his studies Burt reported the following coefficients: 1943: r = .770; 1955: r = .771; 1966: r= .771. These correlation coefficients suggested a strong relationship between genetics and intelligence. One would expect to see greater variability among the coefficients when more sets of twins were added. Other critics later pointed out that it was unlikely that Burt had been able to find so many sets of monozygotic twins reared apart. His 1966 study involving 53 sets of twins was the largest twin study of the time. In 1955, Burt himself commented that it was unusual to find even 21 sets of subjects. Yet only eleven years later he had more than doubled his number of subjects, claiming that society held misconceptions about the frequency with which twins were reared in separate environments. Tucker (1997) examined the numbers of research subjects used in all of the twin studies conducted between 1922 and 1990 and found that no other study came close to having 53 sets of twins that would have satisfied Burt's conditions. The combination of all the twins in all the studies (who fit Burt's criteria) would barely sum to be 53! It did not take long after the official accusation was made by Gillie in the London Sunday Times for supporters of Burt to come forward. Among the first was H.J. Eysenck, who attacked Gillie's arguments and contended that the evidence provided thus far warranted a charge no stronger than carelessness. Several other supporters came forward, the most effective of whom was a former student of Burt's by the name of J. Cohen. Cohen addressed Gillie's claim that the two research assistants, Miss Howard and Miss Conway, did not exist. Cohen claimed that he remembered Miss Conway. In the middle of this controversy, Leslie Hearnshaw began writing Burt's official biography. Hearnshaw had great respect for Burt. He had even delivered an address at his memorial service. Hearnshaw was outraged at the accusations, and implored the academic community to delay judgment until he had finished the biography. Hearnshaw did not doubt about Burt's integrity, and intended to clear his name with the book. As Hearnshaw examined Burt's private records, distressing evidence became to accumulate and he was forced to report that the accusations were most likely true. The conclusions reached by Hearnshaw had a great impact on the academic community, but this was not the end of the debate. In the years since Hearnshaw published Burt's biography, other researchers have investigated the issue and have come out in support of Burt. Two such men are Robert Joynson and Ronald Fletcher. These researchers argue that Burt did not invent any of his twin data. They explain the large increase in the number of subjects by asserting that some of Burt's data had been lost during World War II. After Burt found it, it had taken him a long time to sort it out. They also believe that the research assistants were indeed real people, although it is doubtful that they actually used their real names. Joynson and Fletcher claim that Burt used pseudonyms when publishing, and contend that such behavior, while eccentric, does not constitute a moral or ethical violation.
Conclusions
Since the controversy around Cyril Burt's name is of great importance to the integrity of psychology and other research fields, it has drawn significant attention from the academic community as a whole. Many prominent individuals in psychology and related fields have examined the evidence on both sides, and the conclusions are mixed. Recently, senior fellows of the British Psychological Society campaigned to have Burt's case reheard so that a new verdict can be rendered. The Society agreed to reopen the case, causing some strong reactions on both sides of the debate. For now, Burt's reputation remains sullied, and his story reminds the field of psychology and academia in general of the importance of intellectual honesty.
References
Gillie, O. (1976, October 24).. Crucial data was faked by eminent psychologist. London: Sunday Times.
Hearnshaw, L. (1979). Cyril Burt: Psychologist. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Joynson, R. B. (1989). The Burt affair. New York: Routledge.
Kamin, L.J. (1974). The science and politics of IQ. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1995). Cyril Burt: Fraud or framed? New York: Oxford University Press.
Tucker, W. H. (1997). Re-reconsidering Burt: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 33(2) 145-162.
www.intelltheory.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)