QUESTIONS AND ESSAY PLANS
1(a). Describe one theory of intelligence. (9 marks)
Paragraph 1 Introduction
Introduce learning theory and Ericsson et al.’s (1993) ideas on deliberate practice,
particularly their suggestion that deliberate practice is all that is needed for expert
performance. Describe evidence for, such as Ericsson and Chase’s (1982) study of
the university student, SF, and Ericsson et al.’s (1993) research on violinists in a
German music academy.
Paragraph 2
Outline research on savants and their special expertise. Describe Ceci and Liker’s
(1986) research on individuals who spent thousands of hours acquiring knowledge
of harness racing and Grabner, Stern, and Neubauer’s (2007) research on adult
tournament chess players.
1(b). Evaluate the theory described in part (a). (16 marks)
Paragraph 1 Introduction
Use evidence against, such as Sloboda et al.’s (1996) research, which found no
difference in the amount of practice required to achieve a given level of
performance. Also use the fact that the mean IQ of those in very complex
occupations is much higher than the population mean of 100.
Paragraph 2
Discuss the positive applications. However, on the other hand consider the issue of
cause and effect in research on deliberate practice. Then discuss the sample bias of
research on intelligence and expertise.
Paragraph 3
Consider that a key weakness of the learning approach is reductionism and explain
why this is the case. Conclude why a multi-perspective is better and use Hunter’s
(1983) research as evidence.
2. Discuss Gardener’s theory of multiple intelligences. (25 marks)
Paragraph 1 Introduction
Introduce Gardner’s theory by describing the criteria that he said needed to be met
to become a multiple intelligence, and then the seven intelligences.
Paragraph 2
Outline evidence for, such as: Gardner’s research on geniuses, Lisle’s (2007)
research on adult participants with intellectual difficulties, and case studies of
savants with brain damage and people with exceptional abilities.
Paragraph 3
Discuss the positives of Gardner’s theory, such as that it offers a broader approach
to intelligence and the educational applications of the research. Also consider the
further support provided by Goleman (1995) for two of the intelligences.
Paragraph 4
Comment on the weaknesses of the theory, such as the lack of evidence and the fact
that the genius-based approach to identifying intelligences is flawed. Also consider
that the criteria for multiple intelligences lack scientific validity and that the
evidence from savants can also be criticised.
Paragraph 5
Discuss the fact that the multiple intelligences are not completely separate. Also
evaluate the problem that the theory is descriptive, not explanatory. Consider the
evidence provided by the psychometric approach for some of the intelligences.
However, the key issue is the lack any real scientific support for Gardner’s theory,
which means it is speculation. Thus, whilst there have been positive applications in
terms of education, it is of concern that this theory has been implemented in spite of
the lack of evidence.
3. Critically consider the evidence for animal intelligence (e.g. self-recognition, social
learning, Machiavellian intelligence. (25 marks)
Note that it is better to consider two indicators of intelligence in some depth than try
to do all three superficially.
Paragraph 1 Introduction
Describe how the mirror (or mark) test is used to assess self-recognition and outline
research such as Gallup’s (1970) research on chimpanzees, which were presented
with a full-length mirror. Outline his further research involving the “mirror test” and
his research that compared self-recognition in monkeys compared to primates.
Describe evidence for self-recognition in other species such as Reiss and Marino’s
(2001) research on bottlenose dolphins, and Plotnik, de Waal, and Reiss’ (2006)
research on Asian elephants. Explain how brain-imaging research suggests that the
same brain areas are involved in self-recognition and in inferring mental states in
others, which supports the fact that they are inter-linked.
Paragraph 2
Critically consider the evidence, such as not every ape in every study showed clear
evidence of self-recognition, and gorillas (an ape species) show little evidence of
self-recognition. The association between success on the mirror test and possessing
self-awareness may not be very close. Also, self-recognition is not an all-or-nothing
thing. De Waal et al. (2005) argued that some species occupy an intermediate
position.
Paragraph 3
To evaluate the research on self-recognition, consider concurrent validity and the
fact that self-recognition is a prerequisite of empathy. Discuss the problems of
anthropomorphism and the validity of the mirror test.
Paragraph 4
Outline the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis and describe evidence for, such as
Hare, Call, and Tomasello’s (2006) research on subordinate chimps and monkeys.
Outline the evidence of chimpanzees’ intentional deception. Also describe Byrne and
Corp’s (2004) evidence, which shows that neocortex size is associated with use of
deceptive tactics.
Paragraph 5
Consider the argument against the use of tactical deception, i.e. that it is not an
intentionally deliberate attempt to manipulate others, and use Woodruff and
Premack (1979) as evidence.
Paragraph 6
Discuss the strong evidence for tactical deception. Also consider issues of
generalisability, subjectivity of the evidence, and cause and effect.
4. Critically consider the evolutionary factors in the development of intelligence. (25
marks)
Consider how to structure the material in the plan. Ecological and social have been
organised together as both can be assessed using Dunbar’s (1998) research evidence.
Paragraph 1 Introduction
Outline the ecological explanations, including the dietary hypothesis, the mental
maps hypothesis, and the extractive foraging hypothesis. Also describe how
humans’ diet is more varied and complex than the herbivorous gorillas and orangutans, and consequently the digestive systems differ, which may be similar in terms
of the brain.
Paragraph 2
Counter the evidence for with evidence against, such as Dunbar (1998) whose
research contradicted all three hypotheses. The social theory may provide a more
convincing explanation of the development of human intelligence as dealing with
social problems probably provides more of a cognitive challenge than finding food.
Also, there is not a clear association between tool use and intelligence. Furthermore,
a key weakness of the foraging theory, as a basis on which to judge intelligence, is
that animals with brains much smaller than humans’ successfully use cognitive
maps and hunt.
Paragraph 3
Outline the social explanation including the Theory of Mind and Gallup’s (1971)
research, using the mirror test and Machiavellian intelligence as support. Use
Dunbar’s (1998) research on the correlation between the neocortex and intelligence
to support social complexity as the more valid theory. Include the fossil record as
evidence and say that Schillaci (2006) found that species with the largest relative
brain sizes had monogamous mating systems.
Paragraph 4
Provide evidence against the social complexity explanation, including the fact that
orang-utans have a Theory of Mind but do not live in large social groups. Also, social
groups may exist without knowledge of others’ minds. Furthermore, given that
many apes do live in social groups, much larger brains should be found in apes and
monkeys if intelligence had a social origin. Further evidence against is provided by
Byrne and Bates (2007) who suggest we shouldn’t exaggerate social skills.
Paragraph 5
Consider the limitations of the research into evolutionary factors, including the fact
there are great difficulties in measuring and interpreting animal intelligence.
Consider the difficulty we have in creating a culturally-fair test of IQ in humans to
appreciate the even greater difficulty in devising a species-fair test of intelligence
across animals and humans. Thus, the measures of intelligence may lack accuracy
due to anthropomorphism. Also, consider that neocortex size is not synonymous
with intelligence, and that there are also difficulties with operationalising (i.e.
measuring) environmental and social complexity. Consequently the data inputted
into the correlations may not be valid. The fact that the research evidence on
ecological and social factors is correlational provides further weaknesses—explain
these.
Paragraph 6
Discuss criticisms of evolutionary theory, such as reductionism, determinism,
scientific validity, and that they are unfalsifiable and unverifiable because they
cannot be tested as they are post hoc. They are also selective in the behaviours they
choose to explain, ignoring the ones they can’t or that have clearly better alternative
explanations. A multi-perspective is needed, as the factors in the development of
human intelligence identified thus far offer no conclusive explanation for why
human brains grew so large. A combination of ecological and social factors seems
the most comprehensive account. However, these factors do not effectively pinpoint
the origin of intelligence. The mutant gene that led to bipedalism may be the origin
and so the development of intelligence may be due to random genetic mutation!
Human intelligence may be the result of a chance mutation that resulted in
bipedalism and so freed our hands to forage and create tools. Brain size and
intelligence would be a consequence of better diet.
5. Critically consider the relationship between brain size and human intelligence. (24
marks)
Note the term “relationship”. This immediately means correlational criticisms will be
relevant as AO2.
Paragraph 1 Introduction
Introduce co-evolution and how this has resulted in growth of the brain, according
to the Triune model, which supports a relationship between brain size and
intelligence.
Paragraph 2
Outline the measures of brain size studies that provide evidence for a relationship
between brain size and intelligence, focusing on the gross brain size, brain:body
ratio, and then the EQ and how this places humans further above the allometric line
than all other animals. Also use the fossil records as evidence of the evolution of a
relationship between brain size and intelligence. Consider the weaknesses of the
fossil records such as, they are patchy and incomplete and so they cannot fully
reveal how intelligent our ancestors were.
Paragraph 3
Consider the research into the correlation between IQ and brain size. Explain the
early head perimeter studies and why these lacked validity. Then explain that the
use of MRI scans provides very precise and objective measures of brain size today.
Include McDaniel’s (2005) findings of a correlation of +.33 between brain size and
IQ across 37 samples and assess that it is not a very strong correlation, and so other
factors must be involved. Also, the research had methodological weaknesses,
including sample bias and the validity of the IQ test.
Paragraph 4
Discuss the fact that the evolutionary explanation that intelligence is determined by
genetically predisposed brain size ignores the role of nurture. Intelligence is in part
due to genetic inheritance but is also a consequence of nutritional and social factors,
such as levels of stimulation. Explain why the evolutionary explanation provides a
reductionist and deterministic account of intelligence.
Paragraph 5
Consider the gender differences in brain size as evidence against total brain size and
for the importance of brain specialisation and localisation. Include further evidence
for brain specialisation and localisation such as the size of the frontal cortex in
humans and the post-mortem examination of Albert Einstein’s brain. However, the
direction of effect is not clear, as brain organisation could be a consequence of high
intelligence rather than a cause. To establish brain organisation as a causal factor
further research needs to take a prospective and longitudinal approach, where brain
organisation and intelligence need to be charted throughout childhood.
Paragraph 6
It is over-simplistic to consider brain size as the only influence on intelligence. The
research evidence is correlational. Thus, cause and effect cannot be inferred and so
conclusions are limited to association rather than causation. Another weakness is
that correlations are reductionist because they only analyse two factors when in
reality the relationship between brain size and intelligence is likely to be multifactorial, as the identification of other factors such as nurture and organisation
supports. The evolutionary explanation that brain size and intelligence are related is
subject to the usual criticisms. The evolutionary perspective lacks scientific validity,
is unfalsifiable and unverifiable and is difficult to test because it is post hoc.
Conclude that co-evolution is supported but needs to be expanded upon because the
human brain is highly complex and more organised than in other animals and this
may be equally, if not more, relevant than size. There is consequently not a direct
relationship between size and intelligence as there are other factors that mediate in
the association.