Heritability is the proportion of variability in a phenotype that is accounted for by variation in genotype.
Most studies estimate the heritability of IQ as somewhere between .4 and .8 (generally less for children).
However, there is no single “true” value for the heritability of intelligence, as the heritability of a trait depends on the relative variances of the predictors – genotype and environment. In humans, who don’t live in a controlled environment, variability of this predictor is uncontrolled.
High-SES individuals show higher heritability of intelligence than low-SES individuals.
This has been demonstrated on samples in America, but studies of European countries such as Britain and the Netherlands have failed to confirm this interaction consistently.
Many studies have documented the SES by heritability interaction in children, but only one of several has been able to observe it in adults. This suggests the interaction may not persist beyond childhood.
Adoption studies are likely to underestimate the role of environment due to the restricted social class range of adoptive homes, which are generally high SES and more supportive of intellectual growth than nonadoptive homes.
The restriction of range (as much as 70% in some studies) means that the possible magnitude of correlations between adoptive parents’ IQ and that of their children is curtailed.
Since environment has a larger impact on outcomes among lower SES individuals, removing them from the sample 1) reduces the variance of environment 2) reduces the average impact of environment, thereby causing a reduction in the measured role of environment.
Thus excluding participants from the lowest SES levels biases the results by omitting the portion of the distribution for which environmental effects are known to be strongest.
One explanation is that low-SES children do not get to develop their genetic potential.
Support for this hypothesis is offered by the Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP) – a broad-based intervention program designed to improve the cognitive function and school performance of approx. 1,000 low birth weight infants. When tested at 96 months, the heritabilities of the intervention group were significantly higher than the control group on 7/8 of a wide battery of tests, including the WISC and Raven’s.
There is scant evidence that intelligence can be accounted for by specific genes. A genome-wide scan using 7,000 subjects (Butcher et al., 2008) found only six genetic markers (SNPs) associated with cognitive ability, and only one of these was statistically significant. When the six markers were considered together they barely explained 1% of the variance in general cognitive ability.
Prediction of mental retardation is more successful – 282 individual genes responsible for specific forms of mental retardation have been identified (Inlow & Restifo, 2004).
Studies have reported an increase in IQ of as much as 6 points for infants born with normal weight and as much as 8 points for those born prematurely. The advantage seems to persist into adulthood.
Social class and IQ may be confounding variables. When social class and IQ of the mother is controlled for, a metaanalysis generated the reduced score of a 3-point effect of breastfeeding on IQ. Another found essentially no effect on academic achievement scores when the mother’s IQ was controlled for except for a modest effect for children breastfed for more than seven months.
An important study indicates that breastfeeding is effective in raising IQ by about six points, but only for the large portion of the population having one of two alleles at a particular site that regulates fatty acids and is influenced by breast milk.
Human breast milk contains fatty acids that are not found in formula and that have been shown to prevent neurological deficits in mice.
It raises it, on average, by 12 points (compared siblings left with birth parents or children adopted by lower SES parents).
This is likely to environmental differences that are associated with social class, given that adoption typically moves children from lower to higher SES homes.
In these high SES homes, children are in an environment more likely be supportive of intellectual growth than that of nonadoptive families.
Twin studies tend to overestimate heritability of intelligence.
This is because of a bias in samples towards higher SES individuals. The reasons for this are that lower SES individuals are difficult to recruit and the lower SES individuals who volunteer may resemble higher SES individuals on variables relevant to overestimation of heritability effects.
Since heritability is higher in high SES children, who dominate the sample, the heritability estimate is skewed upwards.
Despite many studies on this subject there is a lack of consensus that birth order affects IQ, although a recent –and particularly rigorous – study indicates an IQ advantage of 3 points for firstborn children over later-born children.
Evidence that these effects are social rather than biological is provided by studies showing that second-born children in families in which the firstborn child died early in life have IQs as high as firstborns at age 18. Thus genetic or gestational factors do not account for the difference in IQ. A possible explanation for a birth-order effect on IQ is that the intellectual environment of the firstborn is superior to that of the later-born because the firstborn has the full attention of the parents for a period of time.
The best prekindergarten programs for lower SES children have a substantial effect on IQ, but this typically fades by late primary school, perhaps because the environments of the children do not remain enriched.
If lower-SES children are placed in average or above-average elementary schools following the prekindergarten interventions, children have scored an average IQ 10 points higher than those of controls when they were adolescents. Another study reported IQs of 4.5 points higher than those of controls when individuals were 21 years old.
By adulthood, individuals who had participated in interventions such as the Abecedarian project were about half as likely to have repeated a grade in school or to have been assigned to special education classes and were far more likely to have completed high school, attended college, and even to own their own home.
Stimulant drugs have been shown to give modest enhancements in attention, working memory and executive function in healthy, normal adults.
A meta-analysis has shown that aerobic exercise, at least for the elderly, is very important for maintaining IQ, especially for executive functions such as planning, inhibition, and scheduling of mental procedures.
The effect of exercise on these functions is more than 0.5 SD for the elderly (and more for those elderly past age 65 than for those younger).
The largest Flynn effect has been observed in Kenya and the Caribbean nations, and the smallest in Sweden, where studies show IQ to have peaked or even in mild decline.
The explanation given is that the Flynn effect is greater in nations that are still modernizing, such as Kenya, and slows once modernization has been reached, as is the case in Sweden.
In Flynn’s 2007 review, gains on tests generally considered to measure fluid intelligence showed substantially greater gains (18 points in IQ-equivalence terms) than tests considered to measure crystallized intelligence (10 points).
If nutrition accounts for the Flynn effect, one would expect to see greater IQ gains in the lower half of the IQ distribution than the upper half because one would assume that even in the past the upper classes were well fed, whereas the nutritional deficiencies of the lower classes have gradually diminished.
IQ gains have indeed been concentrated in the lower half of the curve for some countries (Denmark, Spain, and Norway), but not for others (France, the Netherlands, and the United States). Norway is actually a counterexample: height gains were larger in the upper half of their distribution, whereas IQ gains were higher in the lower half. It is unlikely that enhanced nutrition over time had a positive effect on IQ but a negative effect on height.
In the developed world, nutrition has been a more or less constant factor since 1950, which does not account for the increases in IQ.
The largest gains have been found on the Raven’s Progressive Matrices – nearly 2 SD in the period from 1947 to 2002. Also large gains on the Similarities, Performance and Comprehension subtest. There have been only small gains for arithmetic for both adults and children.
On the Information and Vocabulary subtests, adult gains have outstripped children’s gains, which may reflect the influence of increased tertiary education and more cognitively demanding work roles.
Fluid reasoning, executive function and working memory tasks are associated with activity in the prefrontal cortex (PFC).
Individuals with damage to PFC show profound impairment on reasoning tasks such as the Raven’s Progressive Matrices – while other aspects of mental ability associated with crystallized intelligence remain intact.
Neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that performance on fluid reasoning such as Raven’s is dependent on neural circuitry associated with the PFC – although consistency across studies in brain areas associated with reasoning, however, is limited.
The hypothesis is that individuals of higher ability exhibit greater efficiency at the neural level. That is, high-ability individuals are able to solve simple and moderately difficult problems more quickly and with less cortical activity, particularly in PFC, than lower ability individuals.
Relations between neural activity and intelligence, however, are related to task difficulty in a manner characterized by an inverted U shape. That is, for a simple or moderately difficult task cortical activity is lowest for those of highest and lowest ability and most for those of medium ability.
However, when task difficulty was matched to ability level, individuals with high g(F) exhibited increased brain activity relative to individuals with low g(F). As task difficulty increases, high-ability individuals exhibit increasing neural activity in PFC, whereas lower ability individuals exhibit decreasing activity.
No sex differences appear to exist in overall IQ on average, nor on fluid reasoning. There is minimal or no difference on tests of quantitative reasoning, but males’ scores are more variable, which results in more males at both the high and low ends of the distribution.
However, there are differences, on average, in individual abilities.
Females have an advantage for verbal abilities such as fluency, reading, writing and verbal aspects of memory.
Males have an advantage on visuospatial abilities such as object rotation.