This chapter attempts to broadly outline the current understanding of the etiology of intelligence and intelligence-related processes. First, it describes the major concepts that have primarily guided studies of the etiological bases of intellectual abilities and disabilities. Then, the chapter discusses the state of the field's understanding of cases of intellectual abilities and disabilities. A point of view on the Chinese initiative as presented in the CNN electronic publication is described. The chapter describes the major concepts that have been and are used to explore the connection between the genes and intelligence. The evidence pertaining to observations that the genome is a major source of the variations in individuals' intellectual abilities and disabilities is discussed. Studies of various indicators of information processing speed have been prominent in the field of intelligence due to the observation that these indicators reliably correlate with various aspects of intelligence, especially, with the g factor.

Two traits – warmth and competence – govern social judgments of individuals and groups, and these judgments shape people's emotions and behaviors. The present chapter describes the causes and consequences of warmth and competence judgments; how, when and why they determine significant professional and organizational outcomes, such as hiring, employee evaluation, and allocation of tasks and resources. Warmth and competence represent the central dimensions of group stereotypes, the majority of which are ambivalent – characterizing groups as warm but incompetent (e.g., older people, working mothers) or competent but cold (e.g., “model minorities,” female leaders), in turn eliciting ambivalent feelings (i.e., pity and envy, respectively) and actions toward members of those groups. However, through nonverbal behaviors that subtly communicate warmth and competence information, people can manage the impressions they make on colleagues, potential employers, and possible investors. Finally, we discuss important directions for future research, such as investigating the causes and consequences of how organizations and industries are evaluated on warmth and competence.

This study analyzes the impact of self-esteem (high vs. low), situational characterization (“negotiate” vs. “ask”), and gender (men vs. women) on the likelihood an individual initiates negotiation (n = 140). Self-esteem was primed with a prompt and the participants were told they could either “negotiate” or “ask” for more money after completing two tasks. A main effect of situational characterization was found such that negotiation was more likely in the “negotiate” condition than in the “ask” condition. Neither self-esteem nor gender produced significant results. A significant interaction showed that men were more likely to negotiate in the “ask” condition, but there were no gender differences in the “negotiate” condition. Finally, gender differences in anticipated future earnings were found. Men held considerably higher expectations for average salary 5 years after graduating from college than women. These results have important implications for training students to negotiate for the salaries they deserve and moving closer to closing the gender wage gap. Initiating Negotiation 3 Ask For It: The Impact of Self-Esteem, Situational Characterization, and Gender on the Propensity to Initiate Negotiation Fresh out of college with a diploma in one hand and résumé in the other, recent graduates face an immense challenge to break into the workforce. After countless applications and interviews, when that first job offer comes, most people are so grateful for the opportunity and excited by the prospect of a steady income that it does not even occur to them to negotiate that offer. Few people realize or appreciate that their starting salary sets the trajectory for the rest of their career. Most often future salaries, bonuses, raises, and other compensation are based on their initial salary at their first job. The failure to negotiate initially, even for a small increase, can have a huge impact when factored over a lifetime. For example, take two 22-year-old recent college graduates with the same qualifications offered the same job for the same salary: $25,000. One of them takes the offer, but the other initiates a negotiation and increases her starting salary to $30,000. If that person takes the $5,000 and deposits it in a low-interest account, continues to earn higher raises and bonuses based on the higher starting salary, then by the time she retires at age 65, she will have made $784,192 more than the first person simply because she negotiated that one time (Babcock & Laschever, 2008). If she puts the money in a higher-yielding account and continues to negotiate throughout her career, her gains would be even higher. Thus, the failure to negotiate early in one’s career can be extremely costly. Despite the financial benefits of negotiation, overall few people in the United States initiate negotiations (Small, Gelfand, Babcock, & Gettman, 2007). One reason so many people fail to negotiate their compensation and other benefits, specifically in their first job, could be that they simply do not know that negotiation is an option. In the United States, negotiation is not a common practice in everyday life, so it is quite possible that the opportunity to negotiate is not Initiating Negotiation 4 even on people’s minds, especially for young adults at the start of their career. Unaware of the possibility and potential pay-offs of initiating a negotiation about compensation, people take what they are offered. However, this does not explain the surprisingly low numbers of MBA graduates who negotiate their own contracts—people who should understand the importance of compounding interest and salary increases. One study showed that only 30 percent of individuals graduating with a master’s in business administration—a degree that often includes classes in how to negotiate—actually negotiate their own starting salaries (Small, et al., 2007). This prompts the question: What factors influence an individual’s likelihood to initiate negotiation? The majority of research conducted on negotiation has centered on the actual process. However, this information is not helpful unless an individual actually comes to the bargaining table. Unfortunately, little is known about who initiates negotiations, who does not, and the factors affecting this decision. Linda Babcock of Carnegie Mellon University is a leading researcher in the field of initiating negotiations. As a professor who taught a class on negotiation to MBA students, she was shocked to discover how few of her students negotiated their compensation after graduation and of those who did negotiate, virtually all were men (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). Gender differences in negotiation have since become a popular research topic primarily because it offers another explanation of and possible solution to the persistent wage gap in the United States and around the world. According to the report “Behind the Pay Gap” released by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 2007, on average women still only earn 80 percent of what men earn. This holds true even when only college graduates are considered. Many explanations for the gender wage gap have been offered including the time Initiating Negotiation 5 women take off to raise children, the concentration of women in lower-paying fields, women’s general preference for flexible hours that force them into lower-level positions across industries, and gender discrimination. With the exception of discrimination, none of these reasons explain why within the first year after graduation from college, women working full time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn (Dey & Hill, 2007). Given the legislation requiring equal pay and the growing negative social attitudes toward gender discrimination in the 21 century, there may be reasons other than discrimination for this gap, such as women’s failure to negotiate. Several studies have been conducted in the past decade to determine whether there are gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations and the possible causes of these differences. It has been well established that men initiate negotiations far more often than women (Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2006; Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005; Small, et al., 2007). Several studies have suggested different reasons for this trend. Rudman (1998) argued that the gender norms prescribing “appropriate” behavior for women prevent them from behaving in stereotypically masculine ways, such as initiating negotiations. The social costs of selfpromotion are too high for women. Self-confident women who promote themselves, act aggressively, and do what it takes to be successful professionally are viewed more negatively than men who behave the same way because they violate the gender prescriptions to be modest. As Rudman (1998) explains, “The situation represents a Catch-22 in which women may be discriminated against for failing to counteract gender stereotypes (i.e., for acting ‘as a woman’) and discriminated against for counteracting gender stereotypes (i.e., for not acting ‘as a woman should’)” (p. 643). Another study (Bowles, et al., 2006) replicated Rudman’s results confirming that it does hurt women socially to initiate negotiations. Women seen breaking out of their Initiating Negotiation 6 gender role are considered less “feminine” and are often socially isolated as a result. Negotiation is a very gendered behavior. Women were most reticent to negotiate with a male boss, indicating social expectations regarding “feminine” behavior play a role. Another study proposed that the effects of gender on initiating negotiations are situationally bound (Bowles, et al., 2005). Situational ambiguity—the degree to which it is made clear in a given situation that negotiation is acceptable—affects the influence of gender. Reducing situational ambiguity constrains the influence of gender on negotiation. In other words, if women feel that negotiation is acceptable in a given situation, they will be more likely to initiate it. Bowles, et al. (2005) also showed that gender triggers in a situation activate gender stereotypes and discourage women from engaging in negotiation for fear of social costs, as previously mentioned. According to these authors, situational factors are the primary cause of gender differences in initiating negotiations. Taking these explanations for gendered behaviors a step farther, Small, et al. (2007) argued that the anxiety women feel about starting a negotiation stems from the way the situation is characterized. According to these researchers, the word “negotiate” is gendered as masculine implying aggressive, selfish behavior. Women are intimidated by this thought, do not engage in negotiation as a result, and ultimately lose out. However, when the situation was characterized as an opportunity to “ask,” gender differences diminished drastically. It seems that women were not threatened by the thought of merely “asking.” Surprised by the impact that one word had on participants’ behavior, the authors theorized that the underlying driver behind the results was situational power. Feelings of power—associated with perceived freedom, control, and influence—increase the propensity to initiate negotiation (Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007). In American society, women hold less power than men making them less likely to negotiate. Initiating Negotiation 7 Small et al. (2007) primed power in male and female participants with a prompt asking them to recall and describe a situation in which they had power over another individual. Men and women experienced equal levels of power, making negotiation seem less intimidating, and found that gender differences in negotiation behavior disappeared. Another study, which also manipulated power with the same prime coding level of power on a 7-point scale, found that high-power individuals displayed a greater propensity to initiate a negotiation than did lowpower individuals (Magee, et al., 2007