Intelligence
Intelligence has been defined as what is measured by intelligence tests. What do you include as
being intelligent behavior?
In general, intelligence is considered to be adaptive thinking or action, thinking abstractly to
solve problems effectively.
Psychometric views: Intelligence is a trait or set of traits that characterizes people and can be
measured.
Binet developed a test to identify special needs children for the French school system.
The tasks he looked at for classroom learning were attention, perception, memory, number
reasoning, verbal comprehension. He came up with a formula for assessing intelligence in large
groups, norms. Then individuals could be tested and scored against the norm. Ultimately this
test was called the Stanford-Binet intelligence test. It is still in use today, but is cumbersome to
use.
Factor analysis is a statistical procedure for identifying clusters of test items (factors) that
correlate with one another and are unrelated to other factors. Each cluster is a separate general
ability. Spearman used this technique to infer there must be a general mental ability, g, that
regulates most intellectual function. Then he found there were special abilities within this general
one, s, specific to particular tests.
Thurstone came up with 7 primary mental abilities.
Guilford disagreed, suggesting there may be as many as 180 basic mental abilities, based on
three parameters: content, operations, and products. His theory is called the structure of
intellect model.
Three-stratum theory of intelligence- classifies abilities in a hierarchy, as they relate to g.
Intelligence is both an overarching general mental ability and a number of specific abilities.
Fluid intelligence- the ability to perceive relationships and solve problems free of cultural input.
Verbal analogies, recognizing patterns.
Crystallized intelligence- ability to solve problems based on knowledge acquired from school
and cultural experience. Tests of general information, word understanding, number reasoning.
Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence: emphasizes 3 aspects of behavior not normally
tested by IQ tests.
1)
context of the action
2)
one’s experience with the task
3)
the information processing strategies needed for the test.
Context determines what is adaptive- “street smarts” is practical intelligence, useful in the real
world.
Experiential intelligence means you have had experience in a related area and can apply it
effectively to a new task. One measure of this is dealing with novel tasks. Another is how
automatically we develop useful routines in solving problems. This is one reason that IQ tests
don’t always accurately measure a child’s ability- they aren’t familiar with the test-taking
environment, or the language or culture of the test they are taking. There is an unavoidable
culture bias in tests.
The componential/ Information Processing component: this includes how we size up the
demands of the problem, what strategies we generate to solve them and then monitor our success
until we are satisfied.
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences: humans display as many as nine distinct
intelligences, each linked to an area of the brain, many of which are not measured by IQ tests. To
his original 7, he has now added:
Naturalist- people with great sensitivity to factors in the natural environment that we
affect and are affected by.
Spiritual/existential- people with great sensitivity to issues related to meaning of life,
death and the human condition.
So Gardner believes you may be average in many abilities, but exceptional in one area where
your gift lies. Savant syndrome displays this. Other theorists disagree, saying a gift/ talent in
one area is not the same as mental abilities that are more commonly used to measure intelligence.
Measures of Intelligence
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale uses a ratio of mental age to chronological age to give
a number, with 100 as the average intellect. Norming compares the individual child’s score to
that of the average of large groups of children.
Wechsler Scales (WISC, WPPSI, WAIS) redesigned these tests because he felt the S-B
was biased toward verbal skills. The Wechsler gives a verbal and performance (nonverbal) score.
The difference in these can indicate a learning disability.
Normal scores are normally distributed around the average of 100. Each standard
deviation from the norm is 15 points. Two standard deviations from the norm encompass 95% of
people. These tests are individually administered, so unwieldy for group use. Group tests are
more designed to be achievement tests- designed to assess specific skills related to a particular
area- ACT predicts college achievement based on acquired crystallized intelligence.
Kaufman Assessment Battery for children (K-ABC) is much more nonverbal in
content, measuring fluid intelligence.
Dynamic assessment evaluates how children learn new material – potential to learn.
Learning Potential Assessment Device asks children to learn a new thing with guidance of an
adult who provides a scaffold (Vygotsky). It assesses intelligence as the ability to learn quickly
with minimal guidance.
The Bayley Scales of Infant Development assess the rate at which babies achieve
developmental milestones:
1)
2)
Motor scale-assesses motor abilities
Mental scale- assesses adaptive behaviors, like classifying, searching, following
directions.
3)
Infant Behavioral Record-looks at goal-directedness, fearfulness, social
responsiveness.
It generates a DQ, Developmental Quotient, which summarizes how well an infant performs
compared to the norm. They are not predictive of later IQ or achievement, because they measure
early abilities- sensory, motor, language and social skills. IQ measures abstract abilities, higher
concepts of thinking.
What may be useful for predictive purposes is:
1)
Visual reaction time
2)
Habituation rate
3)
Preference for novelty
The smarter infant prefers and seeks out novelty, soaks up new information quickly, is a
speedy information processor.
Does IQ change over time?
For some people it is very stable, for others it varies a lot (as much as 20 pts.), often in
response to stressors (poverty, abuse). The cumulative-deficit hypothesis says that chronic,
impoverished environments slow intellectual growth, and these deficits accumulate over time. It
shows up as a decline in IQ scores over time. The Romanian orphan study shows the effects of
being in the barren orphanage environment longer than 6 mo. had a longterm effect on IQ, even
though they were adopted into healthy, stimulating homes.
What can IQ tests predict?
1)
Scholastic achievement- those who score higher do better in school and stay in school
longer.
2)
Vocational outcomes- people who score higher on IQ tests are more likely to find jobs
of higher professional rank. (IQ of members is larger as prestige of job goes up). IQ also predicts
job performance- brighter people are more productive than less bright people. People in all jobs
differ in practical intelligence, though. This consists of ability to size up everyday problems,
determine solutions, interpersonal skills, motivation to succeed.
3) Health, Adjustment & Life satisfaction- Terman did a longitudinal study of 1500 gifted
children to assess longterm effects of giftedness. They did show better health, better adjustment,
and better leadership skills than others. They are more likely to feel socially isolated, depressed,
and some even try to hide their abilities in order to be better accepted by others. As adults they
had successful jobs and other accomplishments. Current women considered gifted have a greater
sense of accomplishment and well-being than those in Terman’s study, due to the cultural
climate of that time regarding women. 15% of Terman’s adults were not happy or successful.
They had suffered disruption of family ties due to parents’ divorce or felt less social support/
encouragement than successful peers felt. So quality of home environment also determines
health, happiness and success in life.
Mental Retardation- significantly below-average intellectual functioning with deficits in
adaptive behaviors such as self-care and social skills. Mildly retarded people can learn academic
and practical living skills, can often work and live independently or with some supervision,
coaching. Life outcomes vary, but are less favorable than nonretarded comparison group. 80% of
retarded men were working, mostly at semiskilled, unskilled jobs. Women usually became
wives, homemakers. They had lower incomes, poorer housing, poorer social skills, greater
dependency on others. Even so, most had married and worded and were satisfied with their
accomplishments.
Almost none were on public assistance (a testimony to the job our educational system is doing
for special-needs children).
Heredity vs. Environment
Twin studies- shows the greater genetic similarity correlates with IQ.
Adoption studies- adopted children’s IQs correlate more closely with biological
parents’. But environment can allow a child to achieve to the greatest potential he has.
Conversely a bright child raised with no stimulation or challenge will be impaired in ultimate
accomplishment.
The Flynn effect- average IQs in all countries measured have increased 3 pts. per decade
since 1940. It may be due to improved education, better nutrition, better health care.
Scarr & Weinberg’s adoption study showed children who left disadvantaged
environments for highly educated adoptive families showed higher than average IQ by age 7.
Their measured IQ still tracked closer to biological parents, but their accomplishments indicated
higher abilities than measured.
Their enriched environment and academic reinforcers enhanced actual abilities. So environment
can increase or decrease ability.
HOME inventory- determines how intellectually stimulating or impoverished the home
is. It helps determine if the child is at risk. It assesses 6 subscales of environment:
1)
responsivity of parent
2)
restriction or punishment
3)
organization of environment
4)
appropriate play materials
5)
parental involvement with child
6)
variety in daily stimulation
This test does predict intellectual performance, even showing 10-20 pt. declines in IQ for those
whose home scored very low in the beginning.
There is a natural connection between bright parents providing a more stimulating environment
for children and this ultimately enables higher intellectual accomplishment.
Social class effect- children from lower- or working-class homes score 10 – 15 pts.
lower than middle-class peers. Also children of African and Native American ancestry score 12
to 15 pts lower than European ancestry peers. Hispanics are in between and Asians sore the same
or higher than European children. Why would there be consistent differences between groups?
1)
cultural test-bias tests are based on white middle-class skills and inherently bias
against those of the disadvantaged or those whose first language isn’t English.
Even the way language is used in different groups changes what is learned.
2)
genetic hypothesis- inherited abilities differ according to group. Even culture-fair
tests such as the Raven Progressive Matrices Test show common differences.
Predictive tests like ACT are just as accurate for minorities. Genetic endowment
3)
was the assumption behind the controversial book in 1994, The Bell Curve.
Studies of mixed race children do not support this.
environmental hypothesis- impoverished environments aren’t conducive to
intellectual growth. Also these children are handicapped by being unfamiliar with
the test environment and don’t share the same motivation to show achievement as
middle-class kids. Changing the procedures seems to help these children score
higher.
Having been stereotyped as low-achieving causes many children to not try because they think
the outcome is set up against them. (I’ll reject this test before it can reject me.)
We know that economic disadvantage impacts intellectual development through poor
nutrition, lower brain growth, listlessness, poor attention due to hunger, focus on survival vs.
learning. Scarr & Weinberg’s poor children adopted into the middle class scored about 6 pts.
lower than white biological children in these families. But they scored 15-20 pts better than those
who remained in the impoverished Af-Am environment. So genetics is not the only major
determiner of IQ. Socioeconomic status, especially poverty is a large determiner of academic
competence.
Ever since the 1960s when we began the “War on Poverty” and Project Head Start was
designed, we have attempted to provide disadvantaged children with compensatory
interventions to help them catch up with middle class counterparts. There seemed to be
immediate improvements on IQ scores, but those gains disappeared by 2nd grade (washout
effect). Long-term follow-ups have shown that students scored higher in IQ than nonparticipants for 2-3 years after intervention, but then declined. But these students were more
likely to meet basic requirements, less likely to be assigned to special ed classes, be retained,
were more likely to complete high school. They had better attitudes about school and about job
success. As teens they were less likely to become pregnant or be involved in delinquency, more
likely to be employed after school. The current thinking is that these students need a few more
years of compensatory programs and they may need to start earlier.
Even better, two-generation interventions involve parents with social support and education,
even vocational training to help parents support children more effectively. One program targets
poverty-stricken mothers with healthy first-born children. It provided pediatric care,
developmental evaluations, monthly home visits by psychologist, nurse, or social worker who
gave social support, information about child-rearing and family matters, vocational training or
educational assistance to improve their jobs. With high-quality day-care and child-rearing
training, these children were measured against a comparable group with no interventions. After
10 years, they found tx children to be attending school regularly, achieving in the normal range,
less likely to have been retained or required remediation. Additionally, the diffusion effect on
the younger sibs of the targeted children had the same beneficial effects scholastically. The
intervention helped the parents to be more effective and involved and benefited the whole
family.
The Carolina Abecedarian Project chose at risk families, on welfare, single parent, with a
mother who scored below average on IQ test. This intervention began when children were only 6
weeks old for 5 years. They had special day-care focused on intellect development. The control
group got the same dietary supplements, social services, pediatric care, but not the 5 day day-
care addition. They were followed for 21 years. The subjects outperformed controls as early as
18 months old. They had greater educational achievements all through youth. While these are
expensive programs to implement, they ultimately cost society less than special education,
welfare in the long run.
Creativity is an ability to generate novel ideas and innovative solutions that are valuable to
others.
Giftedness includes high IQ, and special talent in a specific area.
Types of thinking include:
Convergent- thinking that requires one to come up with a single correct answer to a
problem.
Divergent- thinking that requires a variety of ideas, solutions. No one right answer. This
is what is considered creativity. It can be trained.
The investment theory of creativity-the ability to invest in innovative projects and generate
creative solutions depends on a convergence of creative resources, background knowledge,
intellectual abilities, personality, motivation and environmental support.
It can be fostered in the classroom with activities that train
1)
spatial intelligence (sculpting, painting),
2)
kinesthetic intelligence (dance, athletics)
3)
linguistic intelligence (storytelling).
This suggests letting teachers use more
creativity in developing class assignments and activities. Less emphasis on rote learning.