The Sounds and Sights of Intelligence: A Lens Model Channel Analysis

Abstract

The links between 13 auditory and visual behavioral cues, measured intelligence, and observer judgments of intelligence in a zero-acquaintance context were examined in a lens model study. Auditory-plus-visual, auditory-only, and visual-only information conditions, in addition to a transcript-only control condition, were employed to determine whether auditory or visual cues encode measured intelligence more strongly and which are used more in judgments of intelligence. Five cues (of both types) accounted for nearly half the variance in measured intelligence, but it was much more strongly associated with auditory than visual cues. Observers' judgments of intelligence were also much more strongly related to auditory than visual cues. Visual cues may even depress accuracy; accuracy was higher in an auditoryonly condition than in an auditory-plus-visual condition.

Intelligence tests with higher g-loadings show higher correlations with body symmetry: Evidence for a general fitness factor mediated by developmental stability

“…In our view, general intelligence is a highly valid cue of general biological fitness, and this may partly explain why intelligence is so salient, and so easily and accurately assessed in human social relationships (Bevan and Bansavage,1958;Bryan, Hunt, & Walker, 1966;Cook, 1939;Fuhrman, Bodenhausen, & Lichtenstein, 1989;Reynolds & Gifford, 2001;Solomon & Saxe,1977;Zebrowitz et al, 2002). This may also explain why intelligence is so highly valued in human sexual selection, as shown by:…”

Accurate Intelligence Assessments in Social Interactions: Mediators and Gender Effects

“…This traditional approach implies that defined intelligence captures the general cognitive ability with both genetic and environmental influences (Gottfredson, 1997; Neisser et al, 1996). Other related research has employed this operationalization (e.g., Borkenau & Liebler, 1993, 1995; Davis & Kraus, 1997; Lippa & Dietz, 2000; Mackintosh, 1998; Reynolds & Gifford, 2001), and we continue with that approach.…”

“…In line with the ecological approach to social perception, dynamic (i.e., nonstatic) cues such as facial expressions or voice qualities are also likely to contribute to accurate assessments. More recent studies have indeed shown that dynamic cues contribute to accurate intelligence assessments (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995; Reynolds & Gifford, 2001).…”

Predicting Intellectual Ability and Scholastic Outcomes with a Single Item: From Early Childhood to Adulthood

“…How individuals perceive intelligence in others has the potential to influence the success or failure of many social outcomes, including everyday conversations, job interviews, and dating interactions, to name just a few. And research consistently demonstrates perceivers are able to detect strangers' levels of intelligence at better-than-chance levels across a variety of social interactions and judgment conditions [4][5][6][7]. For example, accurate intelligence impressions were achieved with brief exposure (<1 min videos) to target individuals [8].…”