Content uploaded by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard on Nov 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Published in Open Differential Psychology, 18th November 2014.
Submitted 1st September 2014.
Fluid g in Scandinavia and Finland: Comparing results from
PISA Creative Problem Solving and the WAIS IV matrices
subtest
Edward Dutton1and Emil O. W. Kirkegaard2
Abstract
The Scandinavian (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) standardization of the WAIS IV on the matrices
subtest is presented. The score of Scandinavia on the WAIS IV matrices is higher than Finland
(weighted means 105.1 and 103.1, relative to a US norm of 100). However, the difference is not
statistically significant. Finland scores higher than Scandinavia on PISA Creative Problem Solving
2012. We meta-analyze the data from both studies and estimate the Scandinavian Matrices IQ at
99.1 and the Finnish at 102.3 or 102.4 (based on US norms) depending on which sample sizes are
used. Finally, we discuss theories that attempt to explain this difference.
Key Words: Intelligence, WAIS IV, matrices, PISA, Creative Problem Solving, Finland,
Scandinavia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden
1. Introduction
Dutton, te Nijenhuis and Roivainen (2014) presented data indicating that Finland has the highest IQ
in Europe. These data are the following: 1) Finland's scores on PISA tests. These draw upon very
large and representative samples and are strongly correlated with IQ. Finland's score has always
been the highest in Europe or anywhere outside Northeast Asia. 2) Finland's WAIS IV (Wechsler,
2014), which indicates that it has a Greenwich IQ (where the UK IQ is set at 100) of 101.9 on the
matrices (3) Finland's strength in several weaker correlates of IQ, such as average education, health,
political stability and lack of corruption, law abidingness, trust levels and happiness.
In this article, we further test Dutton et al.'s theory by focusing on fluid g, as tested by the
WAIS IV matrices subtest and the PISA Creative Problem Solving (CPS) test.3These two tests are
strongly comparable, as the WAIS IV matrices is a test of non-verbal and non-mathematical
reasoning as is the PISA Creative Problem Solving test. To our knowledge, this is the first English
language published study of the WAIS IV matrices subtest with Scandinavian data. The
Scandinavian WAIS IV standardization was carried out in 2010 in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
The test items were in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian respectively. The total sample had 780
individuals, 260 from each country. The sample was divided into 11 age groups, each with 56 to 85
persons, half men and half women. Compared to census data from 2008, the sample is
representative of the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian populations for education. The norms for
four verbal subtests are based on the national samples, and the nonverbal tests are based on the
pooled results of the whole sample. Since we were interested in the (nonverbal) matrices subtest,
this means that we can only look at the Scandinavian countries as one group.
1University of Oulu, Department of Anthropology, Finland ecdutton@hotmail.com
2University of Aarhus. Department of Linguistics. Denmark emil@emilkirkegaard.dk
3Our PISA 2012 CPS data is copied from the full compilation by Davide Piffer, which can be found here. Data on the
PISA scores of the Finland-Swedes and Finns has been given to us by Kari Nissinen of the Finnish Institute for
Educational Research, Jyväskylä.
2
The Finnish WAIS IV standardization is based on a random sample of 657 persons from the
Finnish population register. The sample was divided into 11 age groups, each composed of 57 to 63
individuals, 27 to 32 men and 28 to 33 women. Compared to data from the 2011 population
register, the sample is representative of the Finnish population for education. The testing was
carried out during fall 2011 and spring 2012. In all cases, exclusion criteria were the following:
ADHD, schizophrenia, other psychotic disorders, depression, epilepsy, cerebral tumor, alcoholism
or drug dependence, Alzheimer's or other dementia, impaired sight or impaired sense of hearing,
and the use of antipsychotic, anti-depressive or anxiolytic medication. Clearly, most of these issues
mainly develop in adulthood (with the exception of ADHD) (see Lynn, 2002) and, as such, those
who may go on to develop them will be part of the PISA sample because the PISA results are from
school-aged children. In addition, the Scandinavian WAIS IV excluded all those whose mother
tongue was not Swedish, Norwegian or Danish while the Finnish WAIS IV excluded all those
whose mother tongue was not Finnish. In making our comparison to PISA, we used only the results
for 'non-immigrants'.
We have chosen to compare Finland and Scandinavia because they are geographically and
culturally close and yet, as we will see below, relatively genetically distinct. As such, comparing
them can, to some extent, allow us to explore a partly genetic hypothesis. In addition, on a purely
practical level, we had access to the Scandinavian WAIS IV and thus it seemed a useful opportunity
to test Dutton et al’s hypothesis.
2. Results
The results of the comparison can be seen in Tables 1 and 2. The WAIS IV manuals for Finland and
Scandinavia do not give us the standard deviations, so we have estimated them using the reverse
engineering method described in Beaujean and Sheng (2014). This involves finding the raw scores
equivalent to one standard deviation above and below the mean, calculating how many raw score
points each score was from the mean and squaring it to get two estimates of the variance, averaging
the two variances and then taking the square root of the average to get an average standard
deviation.
Table 1. Finland and the USA on the WAIS IV Matrices
Age N Mean
Raw
Score
(FIN)
Raw
score -
1sd
Raw
score
+1sd
Estimate
d sd
(FIN)
Mean Raw
Score (US) Estimated
sd (US) Finnish IQ
(US Norm)
16-17 57 19 15.5 23 3.75 19 4.5 100
18
-
19
59
20
17
23.5
3.25
19
4.5
104.6
20
-
24
60
20
17
24
3.5
19
4.5
104
25
-
29
61
20
17
23
3
19
4.4
103
30-34 57 21 17.5 24 3.25 18.5 4.3 108
35-39 62 19.5 16 23 3.5 18.5 4.9 103
45-54 61 17.5 12.5 22 4.75 16.5 4.8 103
55-64 62 16 11.5 20 4.25 15 4.8 103
65
-
69
58
14
9.5
18.5
4.5
13.5
5
102
70
-
74
63
13
9
17
4
12
5
103
75-92 57 12 8 16 4 10 - -
3
Table 2. Scandinavia and the USA on the WAIS IV Matrices
Age N Mean Raw
Score
(SCAN)
Raw
score
-1sd
Raw
score
+1sd
Estimated
sd (SCAN) Mean
Raw
Score
(US)
Estimate
d sd (US) Scand IQ
(US Norm)
16-
17
70 20 15 22.5 3.75 19 4.5 104
18-
19
70 20 15 22.5 3.75 19 4.5 104
20-
24
80 20 15 22 3.5 19 4.5 104
25-
29
80 20 15 22 3.5 19 4.4 104
30
-
34
67
20
14.5
22
3.75
18.5
4.3
106
35
-
39
85
18.5
12.5
22
4.75
18.5
4.9
100
45
-
54
85
18.5
12.5
22
4.75
16.5
4.8
106
55
-
64
67
16.5
10.5
20.5
5
15
4.8
105
65
-
69
56
16.5
10.5
20.5
5
13.5
5
109
70
-
74
60
14.5
9.5
19.5
5
12
5
108
75
-
92
60
12.9
-
-
5.19
4
10
-
109
Using the weighted average, we find that based on US norms Finland has an IQ of 103.1 while
Scandinavia has one of 105.1. This gives us Greenwich IQs of 101.1 and 103.3. The difference is
not statistically significant (p=.398, using Welch’s test because standard deviations of raw scores
could not be assumed to be identical).
In addition, in Table 3, we have the averages of the PISA 2012 Creative Problem Solving
(CPS) test converted into Greenwich IQ (Greenwich IQ refers to UK norms and is so termed due to
the Greenwich Meridian in international time comparisons). To make the conversion we used the
formula IQ=((CPS-517)/96)*15+100. We used 96 as the SD of CPS scores as done by Piffer and
Lynn (2014).5We use only the scores for non-immigrants so that they are comparable to the WAIS
IV matrices scores. In that we compared those to US norms, we also give the US IQ calculation
based on PISA. The US non-immigrant score for PISA CPS is 512. So we used the equation,
((CPS-512)/96)*15+100.
4The SD for this group is reported in the manual.
596 is the OECD average SD. It is better than using country SDs because using individual countries SDs inflates the IQ
score of countries with lower SDs. For example, let us assume that country X and country Y have the same PISA score
which is 50 points higher (550=500+50) than the mean OECD score. However, country X has SD 80 and country Y has
SD 110. Thus, country X's score would be (50/80=) 0.625 SDs and country Y's score would be (50/110=) 0.454 SDs
higher than the OECD average, despite having the same PISA score. Thus, a PISA score of 550 would correspond to
two IQs of 109.4 and 106.8. This result is clearly wrong.
4
Table 3: PISA CPS 2012 Converted into IQ for Non-Immigrants
Country Average Raw Score Average Greenwich IQ Average IQ on US Norms
Denmark 505 97.2 98.9
Finland
526
101.4
102.18
Norway
510
97.9
99.6
Sweden 501 96.5 98.28
The results from the PISA CPS are opposite to those from the WAIS-IV in that the Finns
outperform the Scandinavian countries.
To arrive at a single best estimate, we performed a meta-analysis (N-weighted) based on
both data sets. To do this, we weighted the PISA scores by their country sizes to get an estimate of
the PISA CPS Scandinavian score (A2:D8 in datafile). Then we calculated the Scandinavian sample
size of the CPS administration by summing the samples from each country (K2:N8).
Getting the sample size for Finland was more problematic. We were informed by Kari
Nissinen of the Finnish Institute for Educational Research that the sample size given by the PISA
report is wrong in that it includes imputed data (estimated from PISA 12 Math), and that the real
sample size of non-immigrant Finnish-speaking Finns (distinct from the country’s small, native
Swedish-speaking minority) was 2569 as opposed to the 5910 given. The question is whether the
Scandinavian samples are similarly based on partly imputed data. If they are and we use the smaller
Finnish N, we will be unduly weighting the Scandinavian samples. Because of this uncertainty, we
conducted the meta-analysis with both sample sizes. Results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Meta-analytic results for Matrix IQ
Scandinavi
aIQ (US
Norms) N
CPS12 98.8 15066.467
WAIS M 105.1 780
Weighted
mean Total sample
99.1 15846.467
Finland
IQ
N
CPS12 102.18 5910/2569
WAIS M 103.1 657
Weighted
mean Total sample
102.3/102.4 6567/3226
Since the IQ estimates from the PISA CPS and WAIS IV M were similar for the Finnish
sample, and in that the PISA sample dominated the WAIS IV sample, it made little difference
which number we used for the sample size; a difference of only .1 IQ point. The estimated
difference between Scandinavia and Finland on Matrix-type tests is then 3.2-3.3 IQ points.
3. Discussion
Our meta-analysis demonstrates that Finland has a higher fluid g than Scandinavia. If we
subtract two points to create an approximate Greenwich fluid IQ then we can see that Finland’s is
5
100.3-100.4 while Scandinavia’s is 97.1. However, it must be emphasized that this is only a very
blunt way of estimating the Greenwich IQ. Moreover, there is a degree to which PISA is more
representative, in that the WAIS IV excludes those with various mental illnesses and personality
disorders that tend to develop after the age of 15 whereas PISA includes those who will go on to
develop such conditions. But certainly, we can see that our meta-analysis, in line with Dutton et al.
(2014), confirms that Finland has a higher fluid IQ than Scandinavia and implies that it may be
among the highest in Europe.
What might explain the difference between Finland and Scandinavia? There are a number of
possibilities. The first is simply that the education system is superior in Finland when compared to
Scandinavia and that a better educational system improves fluid g. However, as the education
systems are relatively similar (see Kananen, 2014) it is unclear how this might be the case. Even
granting that the Finnish educational system is better, this may itself be caused by a higher
genotypic ginstead of being a cause of it. Likewise, differences in political stability between the
countries would at least partly reflect differences in g (see Lynn & Vanhanen, 2012). However,
Finland has a much bigger advantage in PISA Maths, Reading, and Science performance than in
fluid g. This may suggest that variables associated with educational attainment, such as better
schooling or higher conscientiousness (see Chamorro-Prezumic & Furnham, 2006), may be
contributing factors. However, Finland’s 5.4% Swedish-speaking minority has a lower score (521)
on the CPS than the Finns (526). Indeed, this minority, which are on average wealthier, healthier,
and better educated than the Finns (see Dutton et al., 2014) score lower than the Finns on every
PISA subtest in all years of assessment. There is a body of evidence that this minority are
genetically between the Finns and Swedes (e.g. Virtaranta-Knowles et al., 1991 or Salmela et al.,
2011). This would argue against a purely cultural explanation. With a relatively small difference on
PISA between native Finns and Scandinavians, it is possible that there is a cultural explanation but
it is unclear what this is. By contrast, Dutton et al. (2014) have suggested a feasible genetic
explanation, which we examine as our fourth possibility.
A second possibility is that the results reflect differences in immigration history between
Finland and Scandinavia. PISA classifies students as ‘native’ if they and both their parents were
born in the country where the test takes place. The Scandinavian countries have experienced mass
immigration from developing countries for longer and a larger percentage of their populations are
third generation immigrants (and thus classified as ‘natives’ by PISA) than is the case in Finland,
which has only experienced immigration of this kind since around 1992 (Dutton & Lynn, 2013).
Based on Lynn and Vanhanen (2012), who have found that IQs are significantly lower than
Scandinavia in third world countries, it might be argued that this difference would reduce the fluid
IQ of Scandinavia in comparison to Finland. Although this may explain the difference to some
extent, it is unlikely to explain all of difference. Sundet et al. (2004) drew upon Norwegian
conscript data to find that the Norwegian conscript IQ reached a peak in 1997 and has declined
since. According to Sundet (pers. comm. 13 Feb. 2013): 'Men from Asian and African countries
have around 5-6 IQ points lower than non-immigrants. But they seem to comprise not more than
around 2-3% of the conscripts in this period. This would deflate the total mean IQ by around 0.1-
0.2 IQ points.’ In order to be ‘native,’ a 15 year old in 2012 of, for example, Iraqi descent would
require two parents also born in Norway. They would have been born there at the latest in around
1980, only two years after most of the 1997 conscript cohort. As such, this would imply that these
ethnic differences would only explain a small element of the difference between Finland and
Scandinavia.
A third possibility is that, as Dutton et al. (2014) argued, Finns have higher levels of
conscientiousness (a personality trait from the Big Five model of personality, see Nettle, 2007) than
do the Scandinavians and this explains some of their superior performance in the PISA CPS test.
This is possible, however a meta-analysis by Kirkegaard (2014) of all the PISA results showed only
weak evidence of conscientiousness explaining variance that was not explainable by measured IQs,
6
and this was only for reading (standardized β = .17, p = .03) not for the CPS test which we used
here (standardized β = -.03).
A fourth possibility, as discussed in Dutton et al. (2014), is that Finland industrialized later
than the rest of Scandinavia which meant that dysgenic fertility set in later later than the rest of
Scandinavia. Moreover, Cold Winters theory and the presence of significant Northeast Asian
admixture in the Finnish population (see Dutton et al., 2014 or Kittles et al., 1998) would all predict
that Finns would have higher genotypic gthan the Scandinavians.6This partly genetic hypothesis
would be congruous with Piffer and Gilfoyle’s (2014) finding that Finns have the highest score in
Europe on alleles associated with educational attainment. Unfortunately, though there are British
samples in their results there are none from Scandinavia.
Datasets and peer review history
The datasets used can be found here on Google Drive: 1) Dataset for WAIS matrices analyses, 2)
Dataset for meta-analysis.
The peer review history of this publication is public and can be found at the journal’s forum.
References
Beaujean, A. & Sheng, J. (2014). Assessing the Flynn Effect in the 5 Wechsler scales. Journal of
Individual Differences, DOI:10.1027/1614-0001/a000128
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2006). Self-assessed intelligence and academic
performance. Educational Psychology, 26, 769-779.
Dutton, E., te Nijenhuis, J. & Roivainen, E. (2014). Solving the puzzle of why Finns have the
highest IQ, but one of the lowest number of Nobel prizes in Europe. Intelligence, 46: 192-202.
Dutton, E. & Lynn, R. (2013). A negative Flynn Effect in Finland: 1997-2009. Intelligence, 41,
5: 817-820.
Eap, S., DeGarmo, D., Kawakami, A. et al. (2008). Culture and personality among European
American and Asian American men. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 39, 630-643.
Eupedia (2014). Distribution maps of autosomal admixtures in Europe, the Middle East and North
Africa. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml
Kananen, J. (2014). The Nordic Welfare State in Three Eras. Farnham: Ashgate.
Kirkegaard, E. O. W. (2014). Does conscientiousness predict PISA scores at the national level? A
cautious meta-analysis. Blog post.
Kittles, R.; Perola, M., Peltonen, L., et al. (1998). Dual origins of Finns revealed by Y-
Chromosome haplotype variation. American Journal of Human Genetics, 62, 1.
Lynn, R. (2002). Racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32: 273-316.
Lynn, R. & Vanhanen, T. (2012). Intelligence: A unifying construct for the social sciences. London:
Ulster Institute for Social Research.
Nettle, D. (2007). Personality: What Makes Us Who We Are. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piffer, D. & Gilfoyle, B. (2014). Detecting “polygenes” using signals of polygenic selection. Tools
for increasing the power of GWAS. Figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1172301
Piffer, D. & Lynn, R. (2014). New evidence for differences in fluid intelligence between north and
south Italy and against school resources as an explanation for the north–south IQ differential.
Intelligence, 46: 246-249.
Rindermann, H. (2007). The g-Factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The
Homogeneity of Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations. European
Journal of Personality, 21: 667-706.
6For a map of the influence of East Asian genes in different European countries see Eupedia (2014). It can clearly be
seen that Finland has the highest East Asian genetic influence of any European country.
7
Rushton, J.-P. (1995). Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Salmela, E., Lappalainen, T., Lui, J., et al. (2011). Swedish Population Substructure Revealed by
Genome-Wide Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Data. PLOS ONE.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016747
Sundet, J. M., Barlaug, D. & Torjussen, T. (2004). The end of the Flynn effect? A study of
secular trends in mean intelligence test scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century.
Intelligence, 32: 349-362.
Virtaranta-Knowles, K., Sistonen, P., & Nevanlinna, H. (1991). A population genetic study in
Finland: Comparison of the Finnish- and Swedish-speaking populations. Human Heredity, 41,
248-264.
Wechsler, D. (2014) WAIS IV esitys- ja pisteytyskäsikirja. Helsinki: Psykologien Kustannus Oy.
Wechsler, D. (2010). WAIS IV. Stockholm: Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, IV. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Eka Roivainen of Verve in Oulu for his assistance. Also, we would
like to thank Pearson in Stockholm for lending us a copy of the Scandinavian WAIS IV manual and
Kari Nissinen of the Finnish Institute for Educational Research, Jyväskylä.
