IQ, Reaction Time, and Mortality: A Critical Review
This paper critically reviews Deary and Der's (2005) Psychological Science article, "Reaction Time Explains IQ's Association with Death," which investigates the correlation between psychometric intelligence scores and mortality. The review begins by surveying definitions of intelligence and the role of fluid intelligence as measured by the Alice Heim 4 (AH4) test. It then evaluates the study's major methodological issues, including the authors' failure to define intelligence clearly, insufficient reporting of the AH4's reliability and validity, and the need for additional statistical analysis of interrelated variables such as smoking, socioeconomic status, and gender. Despite these limitations, the paper acknowledges the study's novelty and its implications for future research on human development.
- Introduction to Intelligence and Its Definitions: Defines intelligence and its competing conceptual frameworks
- Overview of the Deary and Der Study: Introduces the article selected for critical review
- Major Methodological Issues: Critiques undefined variables and cognitive epidemiology framing
- Measurement Instrument and Statistical Analysis: Evaluates AH4 test validity and regression analysis adequacy
- Findings and Broader Implications: Discusses mortality correlation and human development implications
- Conclusion: Acknowledges study novelty and calls for further research
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper situates its critique within a broader discussion of how intelligence is defined, giving readers necessary conceptual grounding before evaluating the study's shortcomings.
- It identifies specific, concrete methodological gaps — such as missing reliability and validity data for the AH4 test — rather than offering only vague criticism.
- The paper balances critique with acknowledgment of the study's novelty, demonstrating academic fairness and avoiding one-sided dismissal.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates evaluative synthesis: the writer does not merely summarize the source article but assesses it against established research standards, including proper variable definition, instrument validation, and statistical rigor. This technique is central to academic critique and requires the writer to apply disciplinary knowledge — here, psychometric and methodological standards — as an evaluative lens.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a conceptual introduction on intelligence, transitions into a rationale for selecting the Deary and Der article, and then moves systematically through methodological critiques: undefined constructs, the problematic use of "cognitive epidemiology," inadequate instrument reporting, and insufficient statistical analysis. It closes by acknowledging the study's originality and calling for replication with stronger methods. The structure follows a classic critical review arc: context → summary → critique → qualified endorsement.
Introduction to Intelligence and Its Definitions
All learning, on the basis of one's composite mental ability structure, can be thought of as a puzzle intricately shaped by neurological, physiological, psychological, and sociological factors. When blended together, these factors produce a healthy, functioning individual. Therefore, before an understanding of how learning comes about — or what variables affect its outcome — one must first understand the concept of intelligence.
Most individuals, professional or lay, have an almost intuitive sense of what constitutes intelligence. Broadly defined, intelligence is an individual's total ability to solve problems. The more complex the problem, the more it is assumed that the individual possesses a higher level of intelligence. Unfortunately, most definitions do not differentiate between intelligence as a general ability and intelligence as several independent systems. That is to say, the question remains: is intelligence a resource of the brain, a particular characteristic of learned behavior, or a finely tuned set of skills and content knowledge?
Although there is no widely accepted definition of intelligence, the most acceptable working definition is that of knowledge inclusiveness. This means that the amount of information an individual has retained and applied — as measured by some standardized assessment instrument — serves as a measure of intelligence level. Whether test scores from these instruments actually reflect an individual's intellectual level has been, and will continue to be, a prime target of debate. The question will always remain as to whether the amount of knowledge one has acquired truly constitutes one's level of intelligence. For a broad overview of how intelligence is defined and measured across disciplines, Wikipedia provides a useful starting point.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.