Posted on 02/04/2006 8:31:46 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
IQ has been the subject of hundreds, if not thousands of research studies. Scholars have studied the link between IQ and race, gender, socioeconomic status, even music. Discussions about the relationship between IQ and race and the heritability of IQ (perhaps most notably Steven Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man) often rise to a fever pitch. Yet for all the interest in the study of IQ, there has been comparatively little research on other influences on performance in school.
Angela Duckworth and Martin Seligman estimate that for every ten articles on intelligence and academic achievement, there has been fewer than one about self-discipline. Even so, the small body of research on self-discipline suggests that it has a significant impact on achievement. Walter Mischel and colleagues found in the 1980s that 4-year-olds’ ability to delay gratification (for example, to wait a few minutes for two cookies instead of taking one cookie right away) was predictive of academic achievement a decade later. Others have found links between personality and college grades, and self-discipline and Phi Beta Kappa awards. Still, most research on self-discipline has achieved inconsistent results, possibly due to the difficulty of measuring self-discipline. Could a more robust measure of self-discipline demonstrate that it’s more relevant to academic performance than IQ?
To address this question, Duckworth and Seligman conducted a two-year study of eighth graders, combining several measures of self-discipline for a more reliable measure, and also assessing IQ, achievement test scores, grades, and several other measures of academic performance. Using this better measure of self-discipline, they found that self-discipline was a significantly better predictor of academic performance 7 months later than IQ.
How did they arrive at this result? They studied a group of 8th-graders at the beginning of the school year. They used five different measures of self-discipline: the Eysenck Junior Impulsiveness scale (a 23-question survey about impulsive behavior), the Brief Self-Control Scale (13 questions measuring thoughts, emotions, impulses, and performance), two questionnaires in which parents and teachers rated the student’s self-discipline, and a version of Mischel’s delay of gratification task. Students were given an envelope containing $1, and were told they could spend it immediately or bring it back in a week for a $2 reward. The students were also given an IQ test (OLSAT7, level G).
At the end of the school year, students were surveyed again and several measures of academic performance were taken. The data included final GPA (grade point average), a spring achievement test, whether they had been admitted to the high school of their choice, and number of hours they spent on homework. All except two measures correlated more strongly to self-discipline than to IQ. Scores on spring achievement tests were correlated both to self-discipline and IQ, but there wasn’t a significant difference. Duckworth and Seligman suggest that this could be partially due to the fact that achievement tests are similar in format to IQ tests. The other area where there was no significant difference was in school absenses.
Most impressive was the whopping .67 correlation between self-discipline and final GPA, compared to a .32 correlation for IQ. This graph dramatically shows the difference between the two measures:
Both IQ and self-discipline are correlated with GPA, but self-discipline is a much more important contributor: those with low self-discipline have substantially lower grades than those with low IQs, and high-discipline students have much better grades than high-IQ students. Even after adjusting for the student’s grades during the first marking period of the year, students with higher self-discipline still had higher grades at the end of the year. The same could not be said for IQ. Further, the study found no correlation between IQ and self-discipline — these two traits varied independently.
This is not to say this study will end the debate on IQ and heredity. The study says nothing about whether self-discipline is heritable. Further, the self-discipline might be correlated differently with achievement for different populations; this study covered only eighth graders in a relatively privileged school. Perhaps self-discipline has a different role at other ages, or in more diverse populations (though the study group was quite ethnically diverse — 52% White, 31% Black, 12% Asian, and 4% Latino). Perhaps the most important question which remains is how best to teach children self-discipline — or whether it can be taught at all.
Duckworth, A.L., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12), 939-944.
Difficult, but not impossible. Difficult in our culture because household chores are nearly automated. Plus it's easier for mom and dad to do jobs themselves rather than make sure junior does it right.
Children must be made to feel ordinary, not special. That way they don't grow up expecting special treatment.
They also must be made to do chores. And to really do chores. All this before they receive any gratification. That way they learn self-discipline.
Just my .02.
And from getting to know them, I realized that they were not necessarily more intelligent than the kids who went to my public middle school-- but they were more diligent and disciplined.
Finally, I'm safe!
Couldn't agree more. The entire "self esteem" movement has been a terrible, terrible mistake.
Right off the bat the "delayed self-gratification" test is wrong. It's a test of trust.
I'm pretty high IQ and there's no way as a kid that I'd have trusted the testers to return with two dollars. I would have just assumed it was a "did you just fall off the turnip truck" test.
I was just reading an article about the amazing Mr. Kim Peek...
Times Online story
Another Kim Peek story
For those of you who don't know the name, Kim Peek is a mega-savant, and the inspiration for the film "Rain Man".
I don't find this particularly suprising. I've always thought that, once a certain level of intelligence is reached, the ability to relate to people and exercise self-control become the true differentiators. (Outside a few very narrowly-defined fields.)
i agree with your .02 worth!
Figures that I'd have a spelling error in a post about intelligence...make that suRprising.
Agreed. Scouting is the best addition to parenting available today to help with this idea.
"Common sense" is not part of the IQ equation.
But self-discipline is more difficult to muster when your IQ is high, because you never have to work at things much.
I disagree.
Most successful folks I know have relatively high IQs...at least say 115 or so
Some segments of our society have rather low IQ means ....and it shows. Cross cultural
I think this was done by a sameness adherent.
In their view nothing matters...we are all alike. Dumb folks are the same as Smart.
That is crap logic
THis is what I hate about the watering down of the religious education in Catholic schools. Nearly everybody I've ever talked to that went to them hated the nuns at the time but now recognize what a gift that education was and would send their children through it too.
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination are omnipotent. The slogan press on has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
Calvin Coolidge
nice story, but ewww on the wikipedia link
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.