Head size correlates with IQ in a sample of Hooton’s criminal data

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 129–139

Head size correlates with IQ in a sampleof Hooton’s criminal data

Jeremy E.C. Genovese *

Cleveland State University, College of Education and Human Services, Curriculum and Foundations,

RT 1351, Cleveland, OH 44115, United States

Received 7 May 2007; received in revised form 20 July 2007; accepted 24 July 2007Available online 10 September 2007

Abstract

Data collected by Hooton (1939) on 676 inmates held at the Concord Reformatory in Massachusettsinclude both anthropometric measures and IQ scores. In this study a sample (N = 238) was drawn to assessthe nonparametric correlation between measures of head size and IQ. Head length (r = .13), breadth(r = .15), height (r = .14), circumference (r = .15) and calculated volume (r = .20) correlated with IQ.Two measures of body size also correlated with IQ; height (r = .22) and sitting height (r = .19).� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cranial capacity; Intelligence; Earnest Hooton; Steven J. Gould; Mismeasure of Man

In 1978 Epstein published a table (Table 1) purporting to show a relationship between head cir-cumference and occupational status. Here is his explanation of the table:

0191-8doi:10

* TeE-m

Hooton studied the head circumferences of white Bostonians as part of his massive study ofcriminals. The following table shows that the ordering of people according to head size yieldsan entirely plausible ordering according to vocational status. It is not at all clear how theimpression has been spread that there is no such correlation (P. 349–350).

869/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved..1016/j.paid.2007.07.013

l.: +1 216 523 7130; fax: +1 216 687 4577.ail address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Table 1Epstein’s (1978, p. 349) presentation of Hooton’s data on head circumference and occupational status

Vocational status N Mean (in mm) SD

Professionals 25 569.9 1.9Semi-professionals 61 566.5 1.5Clerical 107 566.2 1.1Trades 194 565.7 0.8Public service 25 564.1 2.5Skilled trades 351 562.9 0.6Personal services 262 562.7 0.7Laborers 647 560.7 0.3

Note: Epstein’s title for this table was ‘‘Mean and Standard Deviation of Head Circumference for People of VariedVocational Statuses’’.

130 J.E.C. Genovese / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 129–139

Hooton (1939) was a prominent and controversial physical anthropologist who taught at Har-vard. He was the author of two widely used text books, Up From the Apes (1946), an overview ofphysical anthropology, and Man’s Poor Relations (1942), an introduction to primatology. AmongHooton’s many interests was the relationship between bodily constitution and behavior. His studyof criminals involved collecting psychological, sociological, and anthropometric data on thou-sands of prison inmates in 10 states.

A similar, but not identical, table appeared in Jensen’s (1980) book Bias in Mental Testing.Jensen described the table this way:

Brain size is correlated with head size, and thus it is noteworthy that the Harvard anthropol-ogist Ernest (sic) Hooton (1939) found that the head circumferences of Boston whites in var-ious occupational levels are in about the same rank order as is usually found whenoccupations are ranked according to their average IQs, [. . .]. A chi squared test shows thatthe means of the eight occupational categories differ significantly (v2 = 84.4, df = 7,p < .001) (p. 361).

Gould (1981), in the first edition of his book, The Mismeasure of Man, pointed out severalproblems with Epstein’s and Jensen’s presentation and interpretation of these data. First, he notedthat Epstein (but not Jensen) presented the standard error of the mean as the standard deviation.This implied that there was little variation in head circumference within the vocational categoriesand exaggerated the between group differences. I have reproduced Hooton’s original table asTable 2 and Gould is quite correct in pointing out that the true standard deviations are muchlarger.

Next, Gould noted that Epstein and Jensen’s version of the table rank the occupations accord-ing to head circumference and not according to the ranking used by Hooton. Table 3 shows Hoo-ton’s (1939, 1969) actual ranking based on levels of education. Each occupational category wasranked based on its percentage of highly educated people. The categories themselves were based‘‘on a scheme devised by Dr. Winfred Oversholser, which is a modification of the classificationutilized by the United States Census’’ (Hooton (1939, 1969, p. 42)). Hooton (1940) was skepticalabout intelligence tests and this may explain why he thought that level of education was a bettermeasure of intelligence than IQ scores. Hooton (1939) did express some dissatisfaction with hismethod of classifying occupations:

Table 2Head circumference by occupational grouping

No. Range Mean SD

Extractive 1188 502–621 564.74 ± .31 15.72 ± .22Laborer 647 502–621 560.66 ± .44 16.44 ± .31Factory 680 514–621 564.74 ± .42 15.96 ± .30Transportation 282 514–609 564.86 ± .60 14.88 ± .42Skilled trades 351 514–621 562.94 ± .58 16.20 ± .41Trade 194 526–609 565.70 ± .79 16.32 ± .56Public service 25 526–609 564.14 ± 2.51 18.60 ± 1.77Semi-professional 61 526–609 566.54 ± 1.45 16.80 ± 1.03Professional 25 538–609 569.90 ± 1.94 14.40 ± 1.37Personal services 262 514–609 562.70 ± .65 15.60 ± .46Clerical 107 502–621 566.18 ± 1.14 17.52 ± .81Total 3802 502–621 563.90 ± .18 16.08 ± .12

From Hooton (1939/1969, Appendix, Table VIII-17).

Table 3Hooton’s (1939, p. 150) ranking of occupations by education level

Illiterate, read and write,1st–5th grade (%)

6th–8thgrade (%)

High school, college,professional school (%)

Rank

Professional 0 0 100 11Clerical 2.56 22.22 75.21 10Semi-professional 7.25 39.14 53.62 9Trade 18.00 30.33 51.65 8Personal services 20.71 47.50 31.79 7Skilled trades 24.53 50.40 25.05 6Factory 28.07 42.74 29.20 5Transportation 28.32 47.67 24.00 4Public service 40.73 40.74 18.52 3Laborer 50.90 38.69 10.41 2Extractive 60.43 32.23 7.34 1

Note: Ranking has been reversed from Hooton’s original in order to associate higher rankings with higher educationlevels.

J.E.C. Genovese / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 129–139 131

Our occupational categories, eleven in number, are not all so clear cut as is desirable, andsome individuals have been put into the wrong classes, probably as a result of perplexityof the part of the clerical force which had to fit the criminals to the Procrustean bed ofour code. For example, a bartender belongs under personal service, but does a saloon-keeperwho tends his own bar (p. 78)?

A comparison of Tables 1 and 2 makes clear Gould’s most important point; ‘‘My consultationof Hooton’s original chart shows a much worse, and entirely inexcusable omission – data for threetrades have been expunged without comment’’ (p. 110). The Epstein and Jensen tables excludedhead circumference data for three occupations. Another error in Epstein’s and Jensen’s presenta-tion, not pointed out by Gould, is their claim that the data described white Bostonians. In fact, the


data that Hooton presented in his table were from native born white criminals incarcerated in anyof 10 states.

Epstein later recanted, in a manner. In 1984 he wrote:Gould’s comment astonished me when I first heard about it. It turns out that my remark onhead size and intelligence could be misread to mean that I thought there was evidence for areal connection. All I intended to relate was my surprise that the only reference I had foundseemed to indicate that there was some connection. I don’t know nor do I care whether thereis or isn’t a connection (p. 73).

Surprisingly, in his 1982 review of The Mismeasure of Man, Jensen never acknowledges Gould’scritique of his use of the Hooton data. However, in 1993, Jensen and Sinha presented a more mea-sured interpretation of the Hooton’s work:

SES is usually indexed by occupational status, and many years ago sociologists andanthropologists reported average differences in head size and other body measurementsbetween men in various occupations, with those in higher-status occupations, in generalaveraging larger values on the physical measurements (e.g. Hooton, 1939; Sorokin, 1927)(p. 202).

Jensen et al. hint at a more fundamental problem with this approach. Rosenthal, Rosnow, andRubin (2000) describe this type of analysis, based on group means, as an alerting correlation be-cause ‘‘it can alert us to overall trends of interest’’ (p. 2). In this case the alerting correlation sug-gests that there may be a relationship between head circumference and occupational status. Butthe alerting correlation can be misleading:

Correlations based on aggregated data (e.g., group means) can be dramatically larger orsmaller (even in the opposite direction) than correlations based on individual scores. Typi-cally, however, in behavioral research, alerting correlations tend to be larger than correla-tions based on individual scores. (Rosenthal et al., 2000, p. 2).

Thus the only really appropriate analysis would be to return to the original records and calcu-late the correlation between individual head size measures and some metric of intellectual ability.

The records of Hooton’s criminal study are housed in the archives of Harvard’s Peabody Mu-seum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Trying to recreate the sample of native born white criminalsused in the Hooton’s table or, better yet, reanalyzing the entire data set would be a monumentaltask well beyond the abilities of this investigator. However, it was possible to re-examine a sampleof inmates at the Concord Reformatory in Massachusetts. The purpose of the paper is to describethis analysis and present the results.

1. Methods

1.1. The Hooton criminal study

Hooton published his massive The American Criminal: An Anthropological Study in 1939. Thestudy represented the culmination of 12 years of work collecting and analyzing anthropological


and sociological records on 17,076 individuals, most of them prison inmates held in ten states.This total included 3203 non-criminals as a check sample. Hooton estimated he had collected dataon somewhere between 11% and 12% of the incarcerated population of the United States. Theproject was undertaken to test Lombroso’s (1867 – 1899/2006) claim of physical differences be-tween criminals and non-criminals. Three years were spent amassing the raw data. It took anadditional 9 years to summarize and analyze these data with the technology available at that time.It remains one of the largest anthropometric studies ever undertaken.

There is a single anthropometric data sheet for each subject. These forms had spaces for 107anthropological measures, observations, and calculated indices. In addition, there were spacesfor 13 sociological items. There was no space on the forms for IQ score. When IQ scores wereavailable they are written in on the bottom left corner of the form. The sheets are hand stampedwith an identifying number in the upper left hand corner. While there is a space on the form forthe inmate’s name, this is left blank for the prisoners at the Concord Reformatory.

Critiques of Hooton’s theoretical orientation, methods and conclusions can be found in Mertonand Ashley-Montagu (1940) and Ross (1939). Rafter (2004) provides additional background onHooton’s work.

1.2. Choice of the concord reformatory

The choice of the Concord Reformatory was dictated by three factors: (1) IQ data were avail-able for most of the studied inmates, (2) the anthropometric measures was conducted under theclose supervision of Hooton and were most likely to be reliable and (3) the inmates at the ConcordReformatory were the subjects of a separate study published by Glueck and Glueck (1930/1939)in 1930 providing valuable background information not available for the other institutions.

The Concord Reformatory (also called the Massachusetts Reformatory) was founded in 1884.Convicted felons were sentenced to the reformatory as an alternative to the state prisons, when, inthe opinion of the court, they were deemed reformable. Sentences were indeterminate in the sensethat inmates could receive early release or parole if they exhibited progress toward reform. Glueckand Glueck (1930/1939) studied a sample of 510 men released from the reformatory between 1911and 1922. In their sample the average imposed sentence was 56.4 months, but, the average sen-tence served was 21 months.

1.3. Subjects

The anthropometric sheets were stamped with successive identifying numbers in the upper lefthand corner. However, the sheets themselves were in no discernable order. Data from anthropo-metric sheets numbered from 514588 to 514707 (file 1) 514848 to 514996 (file 3), a total of 270,were entered into a statistical spreadsheet. All five files contained 676 sheets. Thus, this samplerepresents 40% of the entire data set. Not all sheets had complete or legible entries. Availabledates on the sheets suggest that the data were collected in August of 1927. The age range was from16 to 39 with a mean of 21.

Most of the individuals in this sample are of European origin or descent, however the sampledid include 5 African Americans and 5 individuals identified as Cuban, Indian admixture, Irishmulatto, mulatto and Japanese, respectively.


1.4. Intelligence quotient data

Hooton (1939, 1969) did not test his subjects for IQ and only copied scores that were alreadyavailable in the prisoner’s records. Most institutions did not test for IQ and the data were gener-ally not available. The Concord Reformatory was an exception and most of the anthropometricsheets have an IQ score written in on the bottom left hand corner of the sheet. Hooton (1939)claimed to have had IQ scores on only 154 inmates at the Concord Reformatory when clearlyscores were available on many more records. I believe the discrepancy may be the result of Hoo-ton referring only to the scores he had on inmates he classified as native white. In the sample usedhere 238 IQ scores were available.

According to Glueck and Glueck (1930/1939) IQ scores were collected by the prison psychia-trist, Dr. Guy Fernald. Fernald began using the Binet–Simon test but abandoned it because hefound its administration too time consuming. In its place he created his own series of tests, whichincluded ‘‘modified parts of the Binet–Simon series’’ (pp. 154–155). Glueck and Glueck comparedFernald’s scores with school grades and other criteria. They concluded that ‘‘in spite of the factthat Reformatory psychiatrist’s intelligence tests are not completely standardized, we have foundthat his intelligence ratings, as a matter of fact, check up very closely with reports from othersources based on standard tests’’ (p. 155). In cases where Glueck and Glueck did not have IQ datathey estimated IQ from school grades. It is not known how many of the scores, if any, in the sam-ple used for this study were derived from age grade approximation.

According to Glueck and Glueck (1939) scores were expressed in terms of the well knownStanford revision of the Binet–Simon scale, as follows: normal intelligence, I.Q. of 90 –110; dullness, I.Q. of 80–90; borderline deficiency, I.Q. of 70–80; feeble-mindedness, I.Q.50–70; imbecility, I.Q. 20–50 (p. 156).

IQ scores in this sample ranged from 46 to 100 with a mean of 77.65 (sd = 12.9) and a medianof 80. Some sheets had written comments that clearly referred to IQ scores (e.g. ‘‘above average,’’‘‘moron’’) but did not report actual scores. No IQ scores were assigned in these cases.

1.5. Anthropometric measures

Hooton (1946) was, perhaps, the preeminent physical anthropologist of his day. His anthropo-metric techniques are described in detail in his textbook Up from the Ape. The data were collectedby graduate students in physical anthropology who trained directly under Hooton (1939, 1969):

Before beginning the work they were given further instruction and practice in the taking ofmeasurements and observations. The technique of measuring was demonstrated upon sub-jects and each observer practiced until the results of his measurements were in agreementwith those of the writer. For the first year the observers worked together in the same insti-tutions, frequently comparing techniques and checking measurements to assure themselvesof the comparability of their methods (p. 36).

In addition to head circumference three other commonly used measures of head size were exam-ined in this study; head breadth, head length, and head height. Two calculated values; cephalicindex and head volume, were computed for this study. Cephalic index, a measure of head shape,


is the ratio of head breadth to head length times 100. Cephalic index values do appear on theanthropometric sheets, but I preferred to recalculate them from the raw measurements. Strictlyspeaking cephalic index is not a measure of size, there is however evidence that higher cephalicindexes are correlated with higher cranial capacities (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984). Head volumewas calculated using the Pearson–Lee (Lee & Pearson, 1900; Krogman, 1962) formula for males;

Volume ¼ 0:000337ðL� 11ÞðB� 11ÞðH � 11Þ þ 406:01 cc:

Height, weight, and sitting height are included in this analysis as measures of body size. Bodysize is a confounding variable in any study of the correlation between IQ and head size. This isbecause it is assumed that a larger body will generally require a larger brain independent of intel-ligence and because both measures of body size and IQ are correlated with SES variables (Gould,1981). Gould (1981) pointed out the inadequacies of using height and weight as measures of bodysize and, thus, includes sitting height in his analysis as I do here. A datum from the ConcordReformatory does support Gould’s contention that weight, an unstable value subject to manyenvironmental effects, may not be the best measure of body size. Fernald (1920) reported that pris-oners gained an average of 7.48 pounds during their period of incarceration.

1.6. Analysis

Analysis of the data was carried out in SPSS and R.The implications of outliers in head size – intelligence studies has been underappreciated. It is

well known that there are pathological disorders where large head sizes are associated with smallor damaged brains (Bastian, 1896; Jones, 2006). Such outliers would reduce the correlation. Atleast one such case exists in the Hooton data. Case number 514659 had a calculated head volumeof 1775.07 and an IQ of 42. The notes on the anthropometric sheet indicate that this inmate hadmegalocephaly.

A number of techniques exist for identifying and deleting outliers, but these techniques couldraise issues of post-hoc adjustment. Instead, I have chosen to include all data but to use Spear-man’s rho in preference to Pearson’s r as a measure of association. Because Spearman’s rho isessentially the correlation coefficient of the rank transformed data it is more robust and less sen-sitive to the presence of outliers (Potvin & Roff, 1993). Missing cases were excluded pairwise.

2. Results

Table 4 shows the nonparametric correlations between potential predictor variables and IQ.Since IQ is a good predictor of academic achievement, the strong correlation between IQ andschool grade level would be expected. However, since it is possible that at least some of the IQscores were approximated by grade level, there is doubt about the validity of this correlation.

Five measures of head size and the three measures of body size correlate with IQ. Thus thissample of the Hooton data does support the existence of a correlation between head size andIQ. Table 5 shows substantial correlations between measures of body size and head size, becausethis is a correlational analysis, it does not demonstrate that higher IQ scores are caused by largerhead size. It remains plausible that some unmeasured variable, such as socioeconomic status, liesbehind both increased stature, and higher intelligence (Wilson et al., 1986).

Table 4Correlations between IQ and other variables

Measure Correlation with IQ

Grade Level .52**

Height .22**

Sitting height .19**

Weight .08Head length .13*

Head breadth .15*

Head height .14*

Head circumference .15*

Cephalic index .01Head volume .20**

Note. All correlations are Spearman’s rho.* p < .05.** p < .01.

Table 5Intercorrelations of stature and head size measures

Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. Weight –2. Sitting height .55** –3. Height .52** .72** –4. head length .43** .33** .38** –5. Head breadth .44** .26** .15* .27** –6. Head height .36** .45** .37** .43** .34** –7. Head Circumference .50** .38** .40** .77** .60** .48** –8. Cephalic index .00 �.07 �.20** �.60** .56** �.10 �.16** –9. Head volume .52** .45** .39** .75** .67** .79** .81** �.09

Note. All correlations are Spearman’s rho.* p < .05

** p < .01.


A number of writers (e.g. Beals et al., 1984) have argued that higher cephalic index is related toboth increased head volume and increased intelligence. These findings did not substantiate thisconjecture. Hooton (1939, 1969) did note, however, that the Massachusetts sample was ‘‘signifi-cantly rounder headed’’ (p. 212) than other samples, a fact he attributed to the ‘‘excess of FrenchCanadians’’ (p. 212) among Massachusetts inmates. Thus, it is possible that the low correlationfound here is an artifact of the sample.

3. Discussion

It is widely asserted that there is no relationship between head size and intelligence (e.g. Burrell,2004; Richardson, 2000). This assertion is false. Vernon, Wickett, Bazana, and Stelmack (2000)


reviewed all published studies of head size of intelligence between 1906 and 1998 and concludedthat the n-weighted mean correlation between head size and intelligence across all populations wasr = .191. The findings of this study are consistent with this result. Indeed, there are reasons to be-lieve that this analysis underestimates the strength of the correlation.

First, this study was limited to criminals with an IQ ceiling of 100. This type of range restrictiongenerally reduces correlations.

Second, as noted in the methods section, outliers are to be expected in brain volume-intelligencestudies and the presence of these outliers are likely to reduce correlational values.

Finally, meaningful reliability data were not available for either the IQ scores or the anthropo-metric measures, thus the correlations could not be corrected for attenuation. In an influential pa-per, Van Valen (1974) argued that since head size is an imperfect measure of brain size and IQ isan imperfect measure of intelligence, loss of information is to be expected. Studies of the correla-tion between intelligence and in vivo brain volume (McDaniel, 2005; Vernon et al., 2000) havesupported Van Valen’s conjecture.

The results presented here do not establish causation. Nor do they tell us if the relationship be-tween IQ and head size is the result of genetic or environmental influences.

In his account of Hooton’s work, Gould (1981) tell us

Yet Hooton himself thought that his chart of head sizes and professions had proved nothing(1939, p. 154). He noted that only one vocational group, laborers, departed significantlyfrom the average of all groups. And he stated explicitly that his sample for the only profes-sions with noticeably larger than average heads – the professionals – was ‘‘wholly inade-quate’’ (p. 153) as a result of its small size (p. 111).

But this does not seem to represent Hooton’s views. On the same page that Gould quotes fromHooton (1939, 1969) says ‘‘in spite of the statistical insignificance of many of the deviations, thehigher economic occupations have somewhat broader heads than the more ignorant occupations’’(p. 154). Later in the book Hooton discussed head size differences between occupational catego-ries. Noting, for example, that the laborer group was ‘‘narrower in head breadth’’ and ‘‘smaller inhead circumference,’’ while the professional group ‘‘has the broadest foreheads and faces, andexcessive size of cranial circumference’’ (p. 279).

Hooton died in 1954. The data analyzed here were collected in 1927 and this research maystrike some readers as arcane or obsessive. To the contrary I assert that continued investigationof cephalic measurements and cognition are of more than antiquarian interest. I can cite at leasttwo areas where the link between head size and cognition are of ongoing clinical and scientificconsequence. First is the important role that head circumference plays as marker of normalgrowth and development. Many developmental disorders are linked to aberrant head size (Jones,2006). Second, is the emerging research on cerebral reserve capacity hypothesis. This hypothesis,proposed by Katzman et al. (1988) and Fein and Di Sclafani (2004), asserts that because largerbrain volumes are correlated with greater number of neurons, larger brains should be more resis-tant to neurological insult or degeneration. Several studies have provided empirical support forthis hypothesis (e.g. Di Sclafani et al., 1998; Kesler, Adams, Blasey, & Bigler, 2003; Moriet al., 1997). For example, Graves, Mortimer, Larson, Wenzlow, and Bowen (1996) found thathead circumference was inversely correlated with the severity of impairment in Alzheimer’s dis-ease. A consequence of the cerebral reserve capacity hypothesis is that measures of head size


may be important predictors of the severity of neurological insult or degeneration. The possibilityof significant clinical correlates of head size justifies continued research on this topic.

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Patricia Kervick and Susan H. Haskell of the Peabody Museum of Archae-ology and Ethnology for their assistance.

References

Bastian, H. C. (1896). The brain as an organ of the mind. New York: D. Appleton and Company.Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current

Anthropology, 25, 301–330.Burrell, B. (2004). Postcards from the brain museum; The improbable search for the meaning in the matter of famous

minds. New York: Broadway Books.Di Sclafani, V., Clark, H. W., Tolou-Shams, M., Bloomer, C. W., Salas, G. A., Norman, D., et al. (1998). Premorbid

brain size is a determinant of functional reserve in abstinent crack-cocaine and crack-cocaine–alcohol dependentadults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 559–565.

Epstein, H. T. (1978). Growth spurts during brain development: implications for educational policy and practice. In J.S. Chall & A. F. Mirsky (Eds.), Education and the brain: The seventy-seventh yearbook of the national society for the

study of education (Part II) (pp. 343–370). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Epstein, H. T. (1984). Brain growth and cognitive development: A response to Richard McQueen. Educational

Leadership, 41, 72–75.Fein, G., & Di Sclafani, V. (2004). Cerebral reserve capacity: Implications for alcohol and drug abuse. Alcohol, 32,

63–67.Fernald, G. G. (1920). Physicians Report. In S. Bates (Ed.), The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Annual Report of the

Commissioner of Corrections (pp. 57–64). Boston: Wright & Potter Printing Company.Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. T. (1939) (Fourth Printing). Five hundred criminal careers. New York: Alfred A. Knopf

(Original work published 1930).Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Graves, A. B., Mortimer, J. A., Larson, E. B., Wenzlow, A., & Bowen, J. D. (1996). Head circumference as a measure of

cognitive reserve. Association with severity of impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. British Journal of Psychiatry, 169,86–92.

Hooton, E. A. (1939). Crime and the man. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Hooton, E. A. (1940). Why men behave like apes and vice versa or body and behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.Hooton, E. A. (1942). Man’s poor relations. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran and Company.Hooton, E. A. (1946). Up from the ape (Revised ed.). New York: The Macmillan Company.Hooton, E. A. (1969). The American criminal: An anthropological study. New York: Greenwood Publishers, Original

work published 1939.Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: The Free Press.Jensen, A. R. (1982). The debunking of scientific fossils and straw persons. Contemporary Educational Review, 1,

121–135.Jensen, A. R., & Sinha, S. N. (1993). Physical correlates of human intelligence. In P. A. Vernon (Ed.), Biological

approaches to the study of human intelligence (pp. 139–242). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Jones, K. L. (2006). Smith’s recognizable patterns of human malformation (6th ed.). Philadelphia: Elsevier.Katzman, R., Terry, R., DeTeresa, R., Brown, T., Davies, P., Fuld, P., et al. (1988). Clinical, pathological, and

neurochemical changes in dementia: a subgroup with preserved mental status and numerous neocortical plaques.Annals of Neurology, 23, 138–144.


Kesler, S. R., Adams, H. F., Blasey, C. M., & Bigler, E. D. (2003). Premorbid intellectual functioning, education, andbrain size in traumatic brain injury: An investigation of the cognitive reserve hypothesis. Applied Neuropsychology,153–162.

Krogman, W. M. (1962). The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.Lee, A. L., & Pearson, K. (1900). Data for the problem of evolution in man. VI.A first study of the correlation of the

human skull. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a

Mathematical or Physical Character, 196, 225–264.Lombroso, C. A. (2006). Criminal man. Durham, NC: Duke University Press (M. Gibson & N.H. Rafter, Trans.,

Original work published 1867–1897).McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain

volume and intelligence. Intelligence, 33, 337–346.Merton, R. J., & Ashley-Montagu, M. F. (1940). Crime and the anthropologist. American Anthropologist, 42, 384–408.Mori, E., Hirono, N., Yamashita, M. A., Imamura, T., Ikejri, Y., Ikeda, M., et al. (1997). Premorbid brain size as a

determinant of reserve capacity against intellectual decline in Alzheimer’s disease. The American Journal of

Psychiatry, 154, 18–24.Potvin, C., & Roff, D. A. (1993). Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: Viable alternatives to parametric

statistics? Ecology, 74, 1617–1628.Rafter, N. (2004). Earnest A. Hooton and the biological tradition in American criminology. Criminology, 42, 735–771.Richardson, K. (2000). The making of intelligence. New York: Columbia University Press.Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational

approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Ross, F. A. (1939). The American criminal: An anthropological study, Vol. I: The native white criminal of native

parentage [Book review]. The American Journal of Sociology, 45, 477–480.Sorokin, P. (1927). Social mobility. New York: Harper Brothers.Van Valen, L. (1974). Brain size and intelligence in man. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 40, 417–424.Vernon, P. A., Wickett, J. C., Bazana, P. G., & Stelmack, R. M. (2000). The neuropsychology and psychophysiology of

human intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 245–264). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Wilson, D. M., Hammer, L. D., Duncan, P. M., Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Hintz, R. L., et al. (1986). Growthand Intellectual Development. Pediatrics, 78, 646–650.

Documents

Head size correlates with IQ in a sample of Hooton’s criminal data