You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Hebb and Cattell: The Genesis of the Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00606 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard E. Brown |
| Abstract |
Raymond B. Cattell is credited with the development of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. The genesis of this theory is, however, vague. Cattell, in different papers, stated that it was developed in 1940, 1941 or 1942. Carroll (1984, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, 300-306) noted the similarity of Cattell's theory to "Hebb's notion of two types of intelligence," which was presented at the 1941 APA meeting, but the matter has been left at that. Correspondence between Cattell, Donald Hebb and George Humphrey of Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, however, indicates that Cattell adopted Hebb's ideas of intelligence A and B and renamed them. This paper describes Hebb's two types of intelligence, and shows how Cattell used them to develop his ideas of crystallized and fluid intelligence. Hebb and Cattell exchanged a number of letters before Cattell's paper was rewritten in such a way that everyone was satisfied. This paper examines the work of Hebb and Cattell on intelligence, their correspondence, the development of the ideas of fluid and crystallized intelligence, and why Cattell (1943, p. 179) wrote that "Hebb has independently stated very clearly what constitutes two thirds of the present theory." |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 187 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 5% |
| Professor | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 64 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 65 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 18 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 63 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 136. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2024.
All research outputs
#284,819
of 24,350,163 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#136
of 7,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,191
of 429,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,350,163 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 429,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.