Back to Submissions

First Previous 1 2
Meta-analysis of sex differences in intelligence
Leonardo Parra
Previous Versions
Version #7 - Apr 14th Version #6 - Mar 9th Version #5 - Jan 6th Version #4 - Oct 31st Version #3 - Oct 31st Version #2 - Oct 28th Version #1 - Oct 22nd

Submission status
Reviewing

Submission Editor
Noah Carl

Authors
Leonardo Parra
Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

Title
Meta-analysis of sex differences in intelligence

Abstract

There is no consensus within the field of psychology on whether there are sex differences in intelligence. To test whether there are, 2,092 effect sizes were gathered that measured differences in mental ability between men and women, representing 15,981,672 individuals. Men scored 2.57 IQ points (95% CI [1.91, 3.23], I^2 = 98.2%, k = 47) above women on general ability tests within adults. Whether this difference is due to general intelligence (g) is not clear, though it is likely. Two of the three methods used to test the developmental theory of sex differences suggested that the male advantage in ability increases with age. 

 

 

Keywords
intelligence, IQ, gender, sex

Supplemental materials link
https://osf.io/ay3j8/

Pdf

Paper

Reviewers ( 0 / 1 / 1 )
Reviewer 1: Considering / Revise
Reviewer 2: Accept
Public Note
updated osf

Tue 22 Oct 2024 21:26

Forum Bot
Mon 14 Apr 2025 03:44
Bot

Authors have updated the submission to version #7

Leonardo Parra
Mon 21 Apr 2025 17:12
Author
Replying to Reviewer 1

Given the current version, I don't have much more to say. Although some points were not addressed appropriately, I don't think it's too big of an issue. There is only one thing I require before accepting: update the supplementary files, along with any missing files mentioned prior. The code is still the same as before (uploaded at 2025-01-06). Remember this is required for all OP submissions. 

Did you update the supplementary files (especially the code)? I still don't see any update in this regard.

The submission has now been updated.

Reviewer 2
Mon 09 Jun 2025 02:13
Reviewer

I am a bit late, but below is a copy of a review I received recently (19th May) for this paper. I can only copy the content as uploading the screenshot still doesn't work properly.

I encourage the authors to provide some response to all of the comments. 

(1) Fix typos, e.g.: "and they found that 5 out of 7 found a small female advantage in general intelligence" or "13 year olds"

(2) Did you consider searching on PubMed or Web of Science (in addition to Yandex...)?

(3) Why are you describing datasets that you ended up not using (e.g. GSS)? A simple mention will suffice.

(4) The PPVY only seems to capture verbal intelligence. Why did you include this but not WORDSUM? Consider dropping it.

(5) You say that the issue of latent differences was ignored, and that only 2.8% of studies examined this. For those unfamiliar with this literature (such as myself), can you elaborate on how this technique differs from looking at sex differences in the latent general factors, or from the method of correlated vectors? How is it possible, as Pezzuti & Orsini (2016) claim, that "the observed difference in intelligence [in favor of men] is of roughly the same magnitude as the latent difference [in favor of women]"? Can you comment on this further?

(6) I don’t understand what you are correlating with what on Table 3. Please explain more clearly. For example, is .83 the correlation between the sex difference in reading and the sex difference in scientific comprehension across nations?

Good paper. I thought it very mind-provoking when I read Hanania's blogpost about this. I would like to see more on why the method of correlated vectors produces null results. The same method has of course been used to support race differences in g, with predictable results.

Also, I just noticed that you didn't skip a row regarding the title of Figure 4. Please do so.

First Previous 1 2
Subscribe Reply