Bouchard’s recent meta-analysis upholds such high estimates, at least for adulthood. These are the figures listed on Table 1 (p. 150):
Age 5: .22 Age 7: .40 Age 10 .54 Age 12 .85 Age 16 .62 Age 18 .82 Age 26 .88 Age 50 .85 Age >75 .54–.62
Age 5: .22
Age 7: .40
Age 10 .54
Age 12 .85
Age 16 .62
Age 18 .82
Age 26 .88
Age 50 .85
Age >75 .54–.62
Did you type the number for Age 16 correctly? I can think of no sensible reason why there should be a divot there.
I uploaded Bouchard’s paper here. I also uploaded Snyderman and Rothman’s study here.
Yes, the figure is correct.
Bouchard’s recent meta-analysis upholds such high estimates, at least for adulthood. These are the figures listed on Table 1 (p. 150):
Did you type the number for Age 16 correctly? I can think of no sensible reason why there should be a divot there.
I uploaded Bouchard’s paper here. I also uploaded Snyderman and Rothman’s study here.
Yes, the figure is correct.