Psychologists have been captivated by the assessment of reaction times since well before psychology was recognized as an established field. Reaction times remain a crucial element in cognitive psychology research, yielding understanding of how cognitive processing differs across various scenarios. Psychologists generally examine changes in response times as indications of varying cognitive processes.
The significant figure, Francis Galton, an esteemed eugenicist and statistician, gathered a vast collection of data on what is known as ‘simple reaction times’ during the late 19th century. Galton’s perspective distinguished him from many psychologists of his era; he viewed reaction times as a potential indicator of individual variances. He theorized that differences in processing speed could represent disparities in intelligence, suggesting that these variances might be identifiable through the assessment of reaction times.
Galton’s dataset poses a fascinating question: Are individuals today swifter or slower than those from Galton’s era, over a century ago? According to Galton’s hypothesis, this comparison could provide revelations about generational cognitive changes, extending beyond simply assessing one’s chances of outperforming a Victorian-era rival in quick-draw contests.
Data on reaction times provides an intriguing contrast to the well-established generational rise in IQ scores, referred to as the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect has puzzled many who instinctively consider “today’s youth” as less disciplined or intelligent compared to past generations—a belief that has historically resonated through time. Additionally, it contradicts theoretical claims predicting a decline in intelligence across succeeding generations due to more intelligent individuals having fewer children.
Nonetheless, there seems to be some optimism tied to reaction time data. It is possible that individuals in the Victorian era indeed had quicker reaction times. Several academic studies have sought to compare Galton’s results with modern research—some utilizing similar equipment and measurement techniques. For example, Silverman (2010) analyzed reaction times from multiple studies conducted after 1941 against those documented by Galton in the 1800s. With only one exception, more recent studies showed longer reaction times than Galton’s results. The likelihood of erroneous timing devices being the cause of these differences is considered unlikely.
Woodley and colleagues (2015) presented a persuasive graph demonstrating a gradual slowing of secular simple reaction time (SRT) across four large-scale UK studies conducted over a century, highlighting that even a seemingly minor increase of 20 milliseconds (approximately 10% slower reaction time) is noteworthy in the realm of reaction times.
How should we understand these results? While it is typically prudent to depend on a single study, even one with 3,000 participants, alternative data remains limited. Reaching young adults from the 19th century for replication is impossible. It is unfortunate that there is a lack of intermediary studies, as these could help confirm the theory that participants from the 1930s had reaction times that fell between those of the Victorians and the current data.
Even if the data is valid, its implications are still unclear. Might this indicate a reduction in cognitive ability? Perhaps there is an increased cognitive load on other tasks, alterations in participant motivation, or even modifications in experimental techniques or participant behaviors? The question of whether modern youth are underachieving remains open for discussion.
**References:**
– Irwin, W. S. (2010). [Simple reaction time: it is not what it used to be](http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.1.0039). *American Journal of Psychology, 123*(1), 39-50.
– Woodley, M. A., Te Nijenhuis, J., & Murphy, R. (2013). [Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470#bb0140). *Intelligence, 41*(6), 843-850.
– Woodley, M. A, te Nijenhuis, J., & Murphy, R. (2015). [The Victorians were still faster than us. Commentary: Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00452/full). *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9*, 452.