Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen

262 Educability and Group Differences
Rosenthal and Jacobson, so that the influences of a number of
factors could be assessed - the effect of the teachers’ attitudes
toward intelligence tests, the effect of giving the teacher the results
of the tests v. withholding test scores, the effect of giving the
teacher grossly inaccurate IQs (inflated by 16 points) on some
children, and the differential effect of all these variables on
children’s retest performance as a function of SES. Two intelligence
tests were used (Kuhlman-Anderson and Primary Mental Abilities).
Pre- and post-testing occurred at the beginning and end of the
school year. All post-testing was conducted by graduate assistants
who were unaware of the nature or purpose of the study. The
results of the post-test analysis revealed no significant differences
among the four treatment groups (viz., a. teachers given IQ scores;
b. withholding of IQ information; c. teachers given Primary
Mental Abilities percentiles; d. teachers given IQs inflated by
16 points). There was a significant effect of teachers’ opinions of
IQ tests as assessed by a questionnaire, but the effect appeared
only for the middle SES children. When teachers were categorized
into three groups (High, Middle, and Low) on their opinion of
the validity of IQ tests, the low opinion teachers’ pupils, in the
middle SES classes, received significantly lower IQs than were
obtained by pupils whose teachers had a high opinion of IQ tests.
The effect was in the same direction for low SES children, but
was so small as to be non-significant even with the large sample
sizes employed. When teachers were asked to assess the accuracy
of the IQ scores given to them, based on knowledge they gained
of the child throughout the school year, they significantly judged
the IQs inflated by 16 points as less accurate than the regular
IQs.1 Fleming and Anttonen (1971, p. 250) conclude:
It appears that, in the real world of the teacher using IQ test
information, the self-fulfilling prophecy does not operate as
Rosenthal hypothesizes. We can only conclude that teachers are
more sensitive to the functioning level of students than previously
believed, since teachers, in fact, identified the inflated group as
less accurate. Recognition of the deception by the teachers
suggests that day to day living with the academic performance
and behavior of children, at least for this group of teachers,
provides more input than the results of an intelligence test
administered on one given day.2