Is there a g in gunslinger? Cognitive predictors of firearms proficiency

Abstract

This study addressed a gap in the research literature by evaluating the validity of general mental ability (g) and personality test scores for prediction of firearms proficiency via shooting range performance, an entirely objective task-based criterion. It was hypothesized that mental ability test scores would be positively related to firearms proficiency based on past research in related areas (e.g., g predicts skill acquisition and training performance) and conceptual similarities between firearms proficiency and cognitive tasks. Using 4 datasets with a combined sample size of 22,525 individuals, this hypothesis was confirmed: g had operational validities ranging from .162 to .188 and logical reasoning had operational validities ranging from .179 to .268 after correcting for range restriction and criterion unreliability. Mental ability test scores predicted an entirely psychomotor criterion task: use of firearms to hit targets at a pre-determined level of accuracy. Most of the validity appears to be attributable to g, but a post hoc analysis indicated that writing ability acted as a suppressor (i.e., the validity of g increased when writing ability was included in a regression model). Conscientiousness was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with firearms performance and emotional stability was hypothesized to have positive linear and quadratic relationships. In contrast, it was observed that conscientiousness had a negative operational validity (−.079) and emotional stability lacked validity relative to the firearms proficiency criterion. The implications for individual differences research and practice are discussed.