Intelligence 2.0 in I–O psychology: revival or contextualization?

Abstract

Comments on an article by C. A. Scherbaum et al. (see record 2012-12566-002). As long as completing one's duties, getting one's job done, and being successful in an organization requires intelligence in some form, a renewed interest in intelligence in industrial-organizational (I−O) research can advance the field, both theoretically and practically. We agree with this view that is well expressed by Scherbaum et al. However, we think that the focal article is stronger in reviewing the field than in defining new approaches. We explore one area of innovation that is important in our view: the contextualization of theory and assessment of intelligence so as to bridge the gap between the context-independent conceptualizations and test of intelligence on one hand and intelligence as required in everyday activities in an I−O context on the other. Scherbaum et al. succinctly capture the general mood when they state that "we know what we need to know"; in our view, it could be rephrased as "we know what we can know, using the mainstream I-O approach to intelligence." In conclusion, we expect that a reintroduction of intelligence in I−O psychology that involves the revival of its classic conception will not be very productive and might actually hamper the wider acceptance among I−O psychologists of the intelligence construct. Using a single test, such as the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) that the lead authors mention, which is mainly a test used with blue collar workers, does not allow the sensitive detection of relevant individual differences.