Sex Differences in Parental Estimates of Their Children's Intelligence

Sex Differences in Parental Estimates of Their

Children’s Intelligence

Adrian Furnham 1 and Lucin da GassonUniversity College London

A series of previous studies with student participan ts has shown that females’self-IQ estimates are significantly lower than those of males. In this study‚ 184mostly white British adults estimated their own IQ and that of their children .The results were in line with previous studies‚ in that males rated their IQhigher than females (108 vs. 104). Both sexes rated their male children higherthan their female children (109 vs. 102). Males tended more than females tobelieve there is a greater difference between the intelligence of female and malechildren‚ but this was not significant. Results were considered in terms of thecurrent sociobiolo gical and sociocu ltural explanation s for sex differences inability.

For over fifty years‚ psychologists have been inte rested in lay theories of

inte llige nce (Fluge l‚ 1947; Shipstone & Burt‚ 1973; Sternbe rg‚ Conway‚Ketron‚ & Bernstein‚ 1981; Fitzgerald & Mellor‚ 1988). It appears to be

both explicitly and implicitly assumed that men were more inte lligent than

women‚ and the historical legacy of this may be obse rved in various national

educational policie s and organizat ional hiring decisions (Lippa‚ 1994) .

There is also an extensive ‚ if somewhat equivocal ‚ literature on sex differ-

ences in attributions for success and failure suggesting that some females

attribute success in male -dominate d occupations to luck or chance (external

factors)‚ while males attribute it to ability or motivation (internal factors;

Feathe r & Simon‚ 1995) . It was not until comparative ly recently that studies

examined ordinary people ’s estimates of sex diffe rences in IQ . Hogan

(1978) reported on eleven different studie s‚ which all made use of Ameri-

can colle ge students. In some studie s‚ participants were asked to estimate

Brief Report

Sex Roles‚ Vol. 38‚ Nos. 1/2‚ 1998

151

0360¯0025/98/0100 ¯0151$15.00/0 Ó 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

1To whom requests for reprints should be addressed at Departme nt of Psychology‚ University

College London‚ 26 Bedford Way‚ London WC1‚ England.

the ir own IQs‚ while in othe rs‚ they were also asked to estimate their par-

ents’ IQs‚ and yet in others‚ the IQs of males and females in general. Com-

pared to the male s‚ the females unde restimated the ir IQ scores (50% of

the time significantly so)‚ and nearly all be lieved their fathers had higher

IQs than their mothers.

Beloff (1992) replicate d this study on 767 Scottish stude nts by simply

asking successive cohorts of students to estimate the ir and the ir pare nts’IQ so as to expose the gende r pre judice about inte lligence . She noted‚

The young women students see themse lves as intellectually inferior compared to

young men . . . . Women see equality with their mothers‚ men with their fathers.

Women see themselves as inferior to their fathers and men superior to their moth-

ers. Mothers therefore come out as inferior to fathers. The pattern has been con-

sistent each ye ar. (p. 310)

Beloff (1992) argued that modesty training give n to girls‚ as well as stressing

humility‚ is like ly to be conne cted to the lower estimates of women and

for women.

Byrd and Stacey (1993) replicate d and extended this study in New Zea-

land by getting students to estimate the IQs of themselve s‚ the ir pare nts‚and their brothers and sisters. Although there were no sex diffe rences in

self-IQ estimates‚ male s thought they had higher IQs than the ir sisters‚while females be lieved themselves and the ir sisters’ equivale nt‚ though the ir

estimates of their fathers’ scores were highe r than the estimate of the ir

mothers’‚ brothe rs’‚ and sisters’ IQ. They argued that the generational and

gende r factors in the ir results combined to produce significantly highe r es-

timated scores for the participants’ fathe rs’ IQs than for any other member

of the family.

Reilly and Mulhern (1995) ‚ working in Northern Ireland‚ asked male

and female stude nts to comple te the two Wechsle r Adult Inte lligence Scale

(WAIS) subte sts (Digit Symbol and Vocabulary tests) and then estimate

the ir overall IQs. The y could thus compare estimated and measure d scores.

Males’ estimates were overall higher than female s’‚ and male self-estimates

were significantly higher than the ir measured IQs‚ while female s were lower

but not significantly than the ir actual IQ. Six male and two female outlie rs

significantly determined the self-estimated sex differences scores‚ and the

authors noted that IQ estimate s research should not be based on the “as-

sumption that gender diffe rences at group leve l represent a generalized

tende ncy on the part of e ithe r sex to e ithe r over-confidence or lack of con-

fidence with regard to their own inte lligence .” (p. 189) . In other words‚some of the previously reported differences may be attributable to the ef-

fect of a relative ly few outlie rs. With the outlie rs removed‚ the sex differ-

ence in the self-estimate IQ declined from 8.6 to 2.6 points.

152 Furnham an d Gasson

Furnham and Rawles (1995) extended this research by asking British

male and female stude nt participants to rate the ir own IQs‚ their pare nts’and grandpare nts’‚ and those of 15 occupational groups. Males rated the ir

IQs higher than female s (118 vs. 112) and both sexes rated their fathers’IQs highe r than the ir mothers’ (115 vs. 108) . Participants ’ grandfathe rs re-

ceived higher IQ estimates (106) than grandmothe rs (99) . Thus although

the perceived sex diffe rence in IQ did not change much over the genera-

tions‚ participants’ estimated ave rage IQ increased steadily in each genera-

tion. There was a fairly wide distribution of IQ scores among occupational

groups from cleane r (81) ‚ bricklaye r (84) ‚ and hairdre sser (87) to lawyer

(121) ‚ doctor (122) ‚ and professor (125) ‚ but this was not corre lated with

sex of the participants or own estimated IQ. They noted that despite the

fact that the psychological lite rature attests to no significant gender differ-

ence in general inte lligence ‚ psychology students appe ared to be lieve in the

supe riority of males‚ at least with regard to inte lligence .

Benne tt (1996) confirme d earlie r findings with 144 Scottish under-

graduate s: Males rated their IQ highe r than female s (X = 117.1 vs. x =

109.4; t = 3.57‚ p < .01). The total group also rated their fathers’ IQ as

higher than the ir mothers’ (X = 116.0 vs. x = 110.37; t = 4.01‚ p < .01) .

However‚ when asked to rate their interpersonal IQ (as oppose d to general

IQ)‚ most of these sex diffe rences disappe ared‚ and the students thought

the ir mothers had a higher interpersonal IQ than their fathers (X = 116.01

vs. x = 106.88; t = 6.45‚ p < .001) .

Previous studies concentrated on self‚ pare ntal‚ and grandpare ntal es-

timates. This study examined adult male and female pare nts’ perceptions

of the inte lligence of their childre n. It was predicted that adult (nonstude nt)

males and females would not only differ in self-estimates as shown in pre-

vious studie s‚ but that they would be lieve the intellige nce of their male

children greater than that of the ir female childre n.

METHOD

Participants

This study was conducted using 184 participants with an age range of

18¯68 (mean age = 33.4) . There were 112 female (mean age = 33.7) and

72 male (mean age = 33.0) participants in the study. The range of the

males was 20¯64 years and the female s was 18¯68 years. They were all

members of the public‚ randomly selected from those passing through a

major railway station between January 8 and 26‚ 1996. Response to the

que stions was 100% ‚ as all participants gave their age‚ sex‚ and IQ estima-

Par en ts’ Estimates of In telligence 153

tion‚ and the age ‚ sex‚ and IQ estimation of the ir children if applicable .

Questions were only aske d in the areas of age ‚ gender‚ and childre n. No

other factors concerning the participants were recorded‚ such as occupation

or race ‚ but it was estimated by the inte rviewers that about 90% of the

sample were ethnic British citizens.

Materials and Procedure

Participants were asked if they would be willing to answer a short series

of que stions concerning the estimation of intellige nce levels while in a pub-

lic place (Euston Railway Station‚ London) . In all‚ 212 people were asked

to undertake the study‚ and 20 decline d due to personal reasons (mainly

time constraints). After verbal consent was given by the participant ‚ the ir

gende r was recorded on the prepared sheet and the ir age was establishe d

by asking in which year they had been born. Participants were shown the

normal distribution of IQ curve with the points of average (100) ‚ one stand-

ard deviation‚ mild retardation (55) and gifted (145) marked along the X

axis‚ and the standardize d question for self-estimation of IQ which all par-

ticipants were asked was‚ “if the national ave rage IQ score is 100‚ what do

you estimate your IQ score would be should you take one of the standard‚obje ctive tests?”

The figure they gave was note d down and they we re then aske d

whether they had any children. If they did not‚ they were thanke d for the ir

time and debriefed where possible . If they did have childre n‚ they were

asked for the ir ages and gender‚ and to look again at the distribution curve

in orde r to estimate where they would place the ir respective children’s IQ

leve l. The participants then answe red a set of que stions concerning the ir

age (“In which year were you born? ”) and IQ estimation of se lf (question

as above ) and of the ir children (“Conside ring each of your childre n‚ one

at a time please‚ tell me the ir age‚ sex‚ and what you estimate their current

IQ to be.”) All answers given by the participants were noted down and

used in the study. Where possible ‚ all participants were debrie fed.

RESULTS

The ages and IQ estimates of all participants are shown in Table I.

Although the age range of the females was greater than the males‚ the

mean age for both sexes was similar. The mean self-IQ estimate for males

was 4 points greater than the mean IQ estimate for females (108 vs. 104)

(F = 14.24‚ p < .001) .


Table II shows the results for subjects’ estimates of the ir first (N =

155) ‚ second (N = 91)‚ and third (N = 30) children. Both male s and fe-

male s be lieved the ir first and second sons have highe r IQs than the ir

daughte rs. There was no significant inte raction effect. Regressional analysis

(also shown in Table II) shows the power of the predictors. In each regres-

sion‚ subjects’ sex and age and child’s sex and age were the independe nt

variable s‚ with estimated IQ always being the depende nt variable . Both age

and sex are equally powerful predictors of own IQ‚ accounting for 14% of

the variance . Younge r rather than older‚ male s more than female s‚ gave

higher personal estimate s of IQ. The results for the childre n are clear and

consistent‚ at least for the first two children. The child’s sex‚ much more

than the ir age ‚ were the strongest predictors of their parentally estimated

IQ. This accounted for about one fifth of the total variance . The small N

= 30 for the third child may account for the nonsignificant findings here.

Although the cell sizes were highly une ven‚ furthe r exploration of the

data posed the following question: Do familie s with one boy and one girl

have different estimates of the ir sons’ and daughte rs’ IQs than familie s with

two or more boys (sons) or with two or more girls (daughte rs)? The analysis

showed no significant diffe rence . That is‚ having two sons and two daugh-

ters did not change the estimates of IQ relative to having one son and one

daughte r.

Following this‚ a three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was com-

pleted‚ looking at subjects’ sex and age (split at the median of 32 years)‚and sex of child with the estimated IQ of the child be ing the depende nt

variable . The ANOVA was computed for only the first child because of

cell sizes. There were two main significant effects and no significant inter-

action. Older subjects gave highe r estimates than younge r subjects (104.81

vs. 107.17; F = 4.79‚ p < .05) and estimates were higher for male children

Table I. Average Age and Self-IQ Estimates of all Participants

(Including Those Without Children: n = 28)

N

Minimum

Age

Maximum

Age

Ave rage

Age

Average IQ

Estimate

All 184 18 68 33.4 105.00

(7.30)

Female 112 18 68 33.7 103.84

(7.25)

Male 72 20 64 33.0 107.99

(7.29)


than female children (102.70 vs. 109.11; F = 35.38‚ p < .001) . The inter-

action narrowly missed significance (F = 3.60‚ p < .06)‚ which demonstrates

that older subje cts rated the IQ of their daughte rs (105.00) more highly

than younge r subje cts (100.39) . Younge r subje cts rated the ir sons at 108.90‚while older subjects rated the ir sons’ IQ at 109.34.

Table III shows the mean of IQ estimation by male s and females of

self and othe rs in this study‚ as well as those in Beloff’s (1992) ‚ Byrd and

Stacey’s (1993) ‚ Reilly and Mulhe rn’s (1995) ‚ Furnham and Rawles’ (1995) ‚and Benne tt’s (1996) studies for comparison. Although the participants in

the studies have been taken from different populations ‚ the patte rn of fe-

males rating their own IQ score is quite consiste nt. The differences be tween

the female and male self estimates of IQ in the Scottish and English studies

showed large differences between male and female self-estimation of IQ.

Table II

(A) Mean Scores and Two-Way ANOVA Results for Subjects’ Estimates of Their Chil-

dren’s IQ

Child 1 Child 2 Child 3

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Subjects

Female 102.71 108.47 102.00 107.14 102.27 103.57

Male 102.68 110.17 101.47 110.24 102.50 107.50

(N = 155) (N = 91) (N = 30)

Sex of subject (SS) 0.66 1.59 2.62Sex of child (SC) 33.54

a 28.19

a 1.78

SS ´ SC 0.57 2.03 0.39

(B) Regre ssional Results for Own and Children’s IQ

Depende nt Variable

1. Own IQ (N = 184) Beta F leve l 15.14‚ p < .001 Age ¯.26

a

R Square .14 Sex .26a

2. First child’s IQ (N = 155) Beta F level 19.77‚ p < .001 Child’s age .16

c

R Square .21 Child’s sex .42a

3. Second child’s IQ (N = 91) Beta F level 16.05‚ p < .001 Child’s age .17

R Square .27 Child’s sex .48a

4. Third child’s IQ (N = 30) Beta F level 1.11 ns Child’s age .03

R Square .07 Child’s sex .26

ap < .001.bp < .01.cp < .05.


In meta-analyse s of sex differences‚ the d statistic is most often calculate d‚which is a measure of degree of diffe rence between the means of two nor-

mal distributions expressed in standard deviation units (Cohe n‚ 1977) . As

a general rule of thumb for psychological research‚ Cohen (1977) sugge sts

that a value of .2 is small‚ .5 is medium and .8 is large . Furthe r‚ the cal-

culation of the d statistic allows a meta-analysis of sex difference. Most of

the papers in this area do not report the standard deviation of the self-es-

timated IQs‚ making it impossible to calculate the d statistic. However‚three calculations were possible : the d for own IQ in the Furnham and

Rawles (1995) pape r was .42‚ whereas in this pape r it was .57. The d for

estimated IQ of first child in this study was .67. It appears that the size of

d in these studie s is probably in the .5 medium range according to Cohen

(1977).

Table III. A Comparison of Previous Studies of IQ Estimate Means

Study Wome n Men Difference

Beloff (1992) : Scotland (N = 502) (N = 265) Self 120.5 126.9 6.4 Mother 119.9 118.7 Father 127.7 125.2

Byrd and Stacey (1993): New Zealand (N = 105) (N = 112)

Self 121.9 121.5 ¯0.4 Mother 114.5 105.5 Father 127.9 122.3

Sister 118.2 110.5

Brother 114.1 116.0

Benne tt (1996) : Scotland (N = 96) (N = 48) Self 109.4 117.1 7.7

Reilly and Mulhern (1995) : Ire land (N = 80) (N = 45)

Self 105.3 113.9 8.6 Actual (me asure d) 106.9 106.1

Furnham and Rawles (1995) : England (N = 161) (N = 84)

Self 112.31 118.48 6.17

Mother 108.07 109.42

Father 114.18 116.09

This study: England (N = 112) (N = 72)

Self 103.84 107.99 4.15

(N = 97) (N = 59)

Male children 107.69 109.70 Female children 102.57 102.36


DISCUSSION

This study replicated and extended the recent studie s done in this area.

In accordance with the four othe rs‚ it showed females’ estimate of the ir

own IQ score was significantly lower than that of males. The scores them-

selve s were lower than many of the other studie s (Beloff‚ 1992; Byrd &

Stacey‚ 1993; Furnham & Rawles‚ 1995) ‚ possibly because the othe r studies

used mainly student participants who‚ hopefully correctly‚ believed the ir IQ

score to be somewhat over one standard deviation above the norm. Indeed‚this study generalize s the findings of previous work‚ all base d on college

students to a larger‚ more representative population of “ordinary” adults.

However‚ as can be shown from Table III‚ the results of the six studies

reported in this area are not totally consistent. Five of the studies were

done in the British Isles (two in England‚ two in Scotland‚ and one in

Northern Ireland) ‚ and each showed males giving highe r se lf-estimate s than

female s (range 4.15¯8.6 points) ‚ ye t the one study done outside Britain

showed rather different findings‚ at least for self-estimated IQ. Byrd and

Stacey (1993) in New Zealand found almost no diffe rence between the ir

sample of male and female stude nts. This could mean that certain cultural

influe nces have a significant impact on the estimation of IQ. Thus‚ for in-

stance‚ in cultures that diffe r in what Hofstede (1984) calls masculinity vs.

femininity‚ it may be predicted that self-estimated IQ disparity between the

sexes is a part function of the national masculinity score . Interestingly‚ ac-

cording to Hofstede (1987‚ p. 189) ‚ Great Britain receives a higher score

(66) than New Zealand (58) . The highe st score was Japan (95) and the

lowest Sweden (5)‚ and it may well be that the sex difference disparity in

self- (and othe r-) estimated IQ is much highe r than in the former than the

latter country. Indeed‚ there may well be a close conne ction between na-

tional sex stereotyping and IQ estimation (Williams & Best‚ 1982).

What this study did show‚ which is new‚ was that British pare nts be lieve

the ir male children have higher IQs than the ir female children. This dif-

ference was particularly true of male pare nts. If it is true that there are

relative ly few significant sex differences in inte lligence ‚ particularly obse rv-

able in children‚ the question arise s as to the origin of these beliefs. Do

men show hubris and women humility‚ or is it that women are fairly accu-

rate in their estimations‚ and is it simply men who overestimate the ir own‚and particularly the ir male childre n’s‚ IQ scores? More importantly‚ if there

are behavioral se lf-fulfilling expe ctations of these beliefs in terms of the

aspirations mothers and fathers have for their children‚ this research may

be of importance ‚ not so much for male s as female s. Indeed‚ males may

benefit from the effects of inflate d expectations.


Hogan (1978) argue d that perceived gender differences in inte lligence

are due to female s be ing “socially rewarded” by denying any inte lle ctual

equality with males. This can be seen to encourage the male be lie f in male

supe riority‚ and may also cause females to actually believe that they are

not as inte llige nt as male s. Beloff ’s (1992) argume nt that girls receive

“modesty training” follows these be lie fs‚ and she lays the blame for this

perpetuation of “inferior women/superior men” be lie fs within the family

circle. She sees female s as “hiding the ir successes” in orde r to propagate

the male belief in male supe riority. If female s are modest and humble about

the ir own achievements while celebrating the endeavor of males‚ achie ve-

ment will continue to be seen as male dominate d‚ and the link between

achievement and (male) intellige nce made stronger.

It must be remembered that in the absence of an obje ctive measure-

ment of the intellige nce of the individuals involve d in the studies‚ it is not

possible to judge whether Hogan’s (1978) and Beloff ’s (1992) findings were

due to female unde restimation‚ male overestimation‚ or a combination of

both. Campion (1992) pointe d out that the sex diffe rences in Beloff ’s(1992) study may have reflected a genuine difference in the IQs of her

female and male participants‚ and that the participants therefore did inde ed

provide accurate estimations. However‚ it must be pointed out that many

other studie s have found no sex diffe rence in IQ‚ including the Reilly and

Mulhern (1995) study base d on two WAIS tests‚ where males scored 106.1

and females 106.9. In fact‚ Reilly and Mulhern (1995) showed that the sex

difference in measured IQ was mainly due to male ove restimation of the ir

own IQ (albe it in only a few male s).

Further‚ Reilly and Mulhern (1995) warned against re lying on group

means to draw broad conclusions ‚ since a generalized tende ncy may be the

result of inaccuracy by a few outlying individuals. The data in this study

were inspected for the possible effect of outlying individuals ‚ but the scat-

terplots suggest that the estimate s for sons and daughte rs were comparable

and there were no obvious outlie rs.

If a male child is be lieved to be more intellige nt by his parents (as

has been shown to occur in this study)‚ and this is constantly re inforced

through childhood ‚ he may be more immune to negative (if accurate) feed-

back that is given late r on in life . Thus there may be a very extensive Pyg-

malion effect working on behalf of male s. It may be that people base

predictions about inte lligence on be lie fs that have been firmly entrenched

since childhood ‚ and that there are diffe rences in the prototype s he ld by

males and female s that are the cause of adult gender diffe rences in the

perception of inte lligence . Byrd and Stacey (1993) conclude that further

investigation needs to focus upon the developmental origins of gende r bias


as well as the precise manner in which they interact to produce differences

in the perceived intellige nce of diffe rent members of the family.

Reinforcement of a relationship between IQ and achievement can be

seen to carry on throughout life . Since men still tend to occupy highe r paid

jobs in certain job market sectors (not necessarily due to greater ability;

Kremer‚ Hallmark‚ Cle land‚ Ross‚ Duncan‚ Lindsay‚ & Berwick‚ 1996) ‚ both

sexes will continue to be lieve female s are less intellige nt than male s. There

is‚ however‚ contradictory evidence about school and exam results. Lynn

(1996) notes figure s from both Britain and Ireland‚ which show that males

perform better at unive rsity than females‚ though the results from school

examinations are less clear‚ indeed suggesting females outperform males

in various specific discipline s. However‚ this sugge sts the socioeconomic

status of individuals may have a conside rable influe nce on self- and other-

estimates of IQ because of their own occupational expe rience . The belief

in male superiority has been vigorously challenge d and possibly change d

by the feminist movement and the greater equality demanded in law‚ par-

ticularly against prejudice in the workplace . It may well be‚ therefore ‚ that

sex differences in self-estimated IQ will‚ and have ‚ decreased over time.

Lynn and Mulhe rn’s (1991) study demonstrate d that males (of various

ages) do actually have overall highe r IQs than females‚ though they show

a greater variability in scores. The diffe rences are ‚ however‚ very small: less

than 2 IQ points (males = 101.16; females = 99.38) ‚ but these results do

seem to indicate males score more highly on inte lligence tests than female s.

However‚ the N in the study was fairly small (N = 125) and only two tests

from a large batte ry were used. More recently‚ Lynn (1996) presented evi-

dence from the Irish standardization of the Differential Aptitude Test that

among 17¯18-year-old male s have a higher IQ by a mean of 2.60 IQ points.

As a conseque nce of this‚ it could be argue d that lay people ’s be lie f in

male inte lle ctual superiority may not be caused by biase d social learning‚but may be a stable ‚ though minor‚ reality. However‚ these views have been

consistently challenge d and the sex and race diffe rences in IQ remains a

very controversial topic (Neisser‚ 1997) . It must be recognized that psy-

chometric IQ and inte lligence are not synonymous‚ and it could be argued

that both the greater variability found in male IQ scores and the consid-

erable overlap in the male/female IQ distribution whose means are less

than three points apart‚ mitigate s the point that lay be lie fs actually reflect

reality. It is unlike ly that lay people would be aware of what is‚ in effect‚a fifth of a standard deviation (3/15 diffe rence) between the sexes and to

base all their estimates and stereotype s on this.

However‚ before we can accept any explanation for the gender differ-

ences in intellige nce estimation‚ more work needs to be unde rtaken con-

cerning the diffe rences between an individual ’s estimated and actual scores


of self and othe rs. The work of Reilly and Mulhe rn (1995) has shown that

this is an area worthy of more research‚ and it may be possible that proven

gende r differences in actual/e stimated IQ will provide the answers as to

what people hold as prototype s for the estimation of se lf and othe rs’ in-

te lligence .

It should be note d that in this study‚ although a participants ’ age was

not shown to be a significant factor in perceived gender differences in in-

te lligence ‚ olde r pare nts with a 20-ye ar-old child will have had more data

concerning their child’s intellige nce leve l than the parent of a 2-year-old

child. Therefore ‚ it may be predicted that the estimates of older pare nts

regarding self and children may be more accurate estimate s of “actual or

measure d IQ” than those give n by the younge r parents. This sugge sts yet

anothe r variable ‚ namely age (as well as education‚ socioeconomic status) ‚that may have an effect on estimated IQ.

Various othe r recent studies from dive rse research areas may throw

light on these findings. From a sociobiolog ical perspective ‚ Daly et al.

(1996) conside red how parental attentive ness and soliticiousne ss to the ir

children may differ. Age of the parents‚ genetic relationship (natural vs.

steppare nts)‚ and birth order all seem related to pare ntal solicitude . Soli-

tude may also be related to the actual and estimated IQ of the ir offspring

such that older parents‚ whose inve stment may be higher in the ir childre n‚overestimate their inte lligence ‚ for both males and female s. However‚ age

of parents is probably corre late d with socioe conomic status‚ which itse lf is

relate d to pare nting. The socially and culturally mediate d nature of par-

enting no doubt relates to the psychometric IQ and estimated inte lligence

of offspring and furthe r research in the area would do well to take these

potentially confounding variable s into account. This certainly warrants fur-

ther research (Bjorklund & Kipp‚ 1996).

Finally‚ there is evide nce that there may be diffe rent meanings at-

tached to the concept of inte lligence or uninte lligence (Furnham‚ Clark‚ &Baile y‚ 1997) . Much‚ inevitably‚ depends upon how many parents in a par-

ticular culture value intellige nce in general or see it as predictive of occu-

pational or life success (Furnham‚ 1996).

REFERENCES

Beloff‚ H. (1992) . Mother‚ father and me: Our IQ. The Psychologist‚ 5‚ 309-311.Benne tt‚ M. (1996) . Men’s and women’s self-estimates of intelligence. Journal of Social Psy-

chology‚ 136‚ 411-412.Bjorklund‚ D.‚ & Kipp‚ K. (1996). Parental investment theory and gender differences in the

evolution of inhibited mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin‚ 120‚ 163-188.Byrd‚ M.‚ & Stacey‚ B. (1993) . Bias in IQ perception. The Psychologist‚ 6‚ 16.


Campion‚ J. (1992) . Gender prejudice and IQ. The Psychologist‚ 5‚ 456.Cohen‚ J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural power analyses. New York: Aca-

demic Press.Daly‚ M.‚ McConnell‚ C.‚ & Glugosh‚ T. (1996) . Pare nts’ knowledge of students’ beliefs and

attitudes: An indirect assessment of parental solicitude. Ethology and Sociobiology‚ 17‚201-210.

Feathe r‚ N.‚ & Simon‚ J. (1975). Reactions of male and female success and failure in sex-linkedoccupations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ 31‚ 20-31.

Fitzgerald‚ J.‚ & Mellor‚ S. (1988) . How do people think about intelligence? Multivariate Be-havioural Research ‚ 23‚ 143-157.

Flugel‚ J. (1947) . An enquiry as to popular views on intelligence and related topics. BritishJournal of Educationa l Psychology‚ 27‚ 140-152.

Furnham‚ A. (1996) . Lay theories. London: Whurr.Furnham‚ A.‚ & Rawles‚ R. (1995). Sex differences in the estimation of intelligence. Journal

of Social Behaviour and Personality‚ 10‚ 741-745.Furnham‚ A.‚ Clark‚ K.‚ & Bailey‚ K. (1997) . Sex differences in estimates of multiple intelligence.

Unpublished manuscript.Hogan‚ H. (1978) . IQ se lf-estimates of males and females. Journal of Social Psychology‚ 106‚

137-138.Hofstede ‚ E. (1984) . Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills‚ CA: Sage.

Kremer‚ J.‚ Hallmark‚ A.‚ Cleland‚ J.‚ Ross‚ V.‚ Duncan‚ J.‚ Lindsay‚ B.‚ & Berwick‚ S. (1996) .Gender and equal opportunities in public sector organisations. Journal of Occupational

and Organisational Psychology‚ 69‚ 183-198.Lippa‚ R. (1994). Introduction to Social Psychology. Pacific Grove ‚ CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lynn‚ R.‚ & Mulhern‚ G. (1991). A comparison of sex difference on the Scottish and Americanstandardization samples of the WISC-R. Personality and Individual Differences‚ 12‚ 1179-

1182.Lynn‚ R. (1996) . Differences between males and females in mean IQ and university exami-

nation performance in Ire land. Personality and Individual Differences‚ 20‚ 649-652.Ne isser‚ U. (1997). Ne ver a dull mome nt. American Psychologist‚ 52‚ 79-81.

Reilly‚ J.‚ & Mulhern‚ G. (1995) . Ge nder difference in self-estimated IQ: The need for carein interpreting group data. Personality and Individual Differences‚ 18‚ 189-192.

Shipstone‚ K.‚ & Burt‚ S. (1973) . Twenty five years on: A replication of Flugel’s (1947) workon lay popular views of intelligence and related topics. British Journal of Educational

Psychology‚ 56‚ 183-187.Sternberg‚ R.‚ Conway‚ B.‚ Ketron‚ J.‚ & Bernstein‚ M. (1981). People’s conception of intel-

ligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ 41‚ 37-55.Williams‚ J.‚ & Best‚ D. (1982) . Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A thirty nation study. Beverly Hills‚

CA: Sage .


Documents

Sex Differences in Parental Estimates of Their Children's Intelligence