PSYC 102: Week 5 Lecture

Intelligence Test

• intelligence tests measure comprehensive capability (potential for learning) across all relevant domains

• aptitude tests measure current ability in specific areas

• achievement tests measure what has already been learned

3 Approaches to Intelligence

1) Psychometric Approach

• children seem to have different potential

2) Multiple Intelligences Approach

• Intelligence is expressed in many ways

• in conflict w/ psychometric approach

3) Information Processing Approach

• investigate the building blocks of intelligence

• complementary to other approaches

Psychometric Approach

• some children seem to have more potential than others

• analogous to trait approach in personality psychology

• tries to measure intelligence

  • noticing differences and trying to define these differences

• conclusion: Two-Factor Theory

Two-Factor Theory: Factors

Factor 1: g, or general ability

• equivalent to intelligence

Factor 2: s, or specific abilities

• includes abilities that we have developed over time

• not an expression of smo’s potential

• does not flow into g, but g flows into all dimensions of s

• we can improve specific abilities, but that doesn’t increase our overall intelligence

How would we know a theory of intelligence is accurate?

• obscure/investigate intelligence over the life span

  • assumption: intelligence remains constant over time

• take more measurements when people’s brains are still developing (while young)

Two-Factor Theory

• two-factor theory has predictive validity

• g correlates with real world behavior that reflects intelligence:

  • elementary school grades, 49%

  • high school grades, 36%

  • college grades, 20%

  • graduate school, 15%

• the harder the study, the less intuitive the knowledge is of the world, and more about how much we practiced a topic

  • earlier studies grades ppl based on intelligence

• mechanical s correlates with:

  • video game expertise, 15%

Multiple Intelligences Approach

• intelligence is the product of many communicating systems

Conclusion: Theory of multiple intelligences

• intelligences are independent of one another

Multiple Intelligences Approach: Supporting Evidence

• brain damage often impacts a specific ability, but not other abilities

• development of systems happens at different ages

  • how does it make sense that out brains develop when we are young if we were born with a general intelligence potential?

• ‘gifted’ individuals may possess strong ability in one domain, but not another

  • if g is everything needed to understand about intelligence, would gifted people be gifted at everything?

Gardner’s Intelligences

** what 2-factor theory considers to be g

-according to 2-factor theory, all other intelligences are only special abilities

• logical/mathematical **

• verbal **

• visual-spatial: degree to which we can look at things and understand them

• intra-personal: intelligence about what is going on inside of me

  • especially my consciousness, thoughts and emotions

• social: the degree to which I can take the perspective of other people

  • degree to which I can modulate my behavior to interact with other ppl successfully

• body/kinesthetic

• musical

• naturalistic

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences: Limitations

• multiple intelligences are strongly correlated with each other

  • they shouldn’t be, they should be unique

  • the overlap of intelligences imply an underlying factor that supports all of them (g)

• multiple intelligences strongly correlate with g

  • further implies that there is an underlying intelligence that supports all of them

• subjective theory

  • different researchers could defend entirely different sets of intellligences

  • different ways of determining whether something is a unique intelligence or another ability that can be practiced

• low predictive validity

  • should be specific to each intelligence and not to many

Information Processing Approach

• investigate basic processes supporting intelligence

1. processing speed: how quickly can you perform mental tasks

2. acquiring new mental processes (or habits)

   1. how long it takes to build new processes

3. inhibiting previously learned mental processes

4. knowledge base, or crystallized intelligence

Information Processing Approach: Conclusion

Most evidence supports “working memory factor”

• like 2-factor theory

Other evidence points to a 3 factor model

• similar to multiple intelligence approach

• updating: acquiring new info while holding old info in mind

• shifting: attention from one goal to another

• inhibition: preventing ourselves from inappropriate overlearned behavior

Defining Intelligence: Synthesis

Data seem to indicate:

• a general factor (g)

• specific abilities (not intelligences)

• a role for information processing

  • low-level mechanisms of processes that contribute to g and s

  • eg. working memory

Best IQ Test

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)

• dominant to investigating intelligence

WAIS-IV

• 10 subtests in 4 ability groups

Tests for g (2-factor theory):

• verbal comprehension index

• perceptual reasoning index

Tests for Information processing mechanisms:

• working memory index

• processing speed index

WAIS Example: Find Duplicate Names

• must identify duplicates AND keep track of how many duplicates

  • must continuously update the number

• limitation of WAIS: culturally biased test

  • some cultures don’t have middle names and would require more mental resources/work

WAIS Example: Working Memory

• tests ability to shift between goals, while keeping a working memory

• working memory test is an important indicator of a person’s basic supporting mechanisms of intelligence

SPAN task

1. remember the letters in order

2. solve the math problem

Useful tests of intelligence: Reliability

• be reliable and consistent over time

Assumption: intelligence is relatively consistent over time

• high test-retest reliability

• high internal consistency and split half reliability

• WAIS: r = 0.96 (higher than Big 5)

Useful tests of intelligence: Validity

• be valid, correlating w/ other measures, making good predictions

• high concurrent validity

  • WAIS score predicts score on other IQ measures

  • WAIS score predicts job performance

    • predictions get better as the job requires more complex decision-making

Flynn Effect: A challenge to validity

• Flynn effect refers to the steady rise in IQ scores over time

  • 3 points per 10 years, on many different tests

Why is this a challenge to validity?

• IQ should be relatively consistent over generations if it is an innate ability to navigate our environment

Flynn Effect: Potential Explanations

Changing (or bad) tests

• tests might be getting easier over time

• intelligence isn’t increasing, just the scores are getting inflated

People are changing

• sexual or natural selection is leading to the average person being smarter

Changing environments

• situational effect

• eg. availability of nutrition/ amount of stimulation

Flynn Effect: Best Explanation

• more people have access to good nutrition

• less physical labor increases time for thinking

• once people get the proper nutrition and the opportunity to practice and develop their intellectual skills, then they can maximize the potential they were born with

• our intelligence isn’t changing, it’s our ability to take advantage of it

Flynn Effect: How can we increase intelligence?

• make resources available to everyone (nutrition and stimulation)

  • allows people to maximize their potential of intelligence

• if tests are bad: improve the test, but that doesn’t allow intelligence to increase

Will intelligence continue climbing or level off?

• level off once we reach our innate potential

IQ by situation: Prenatal Health

• children who are born with lower weights, will tend to have lower IQ scores

• nutritional needs have not been met prenatally and/or initially after birth

• there are demands to be caught up on

IQ by situation: Birth Order

• first born childs on average are more intelligent than their siblings

• same with siblings who are born closely together (less intelligent) than siblings more spaced apart

Why?

• availability of resources:

  • nutrition

  • stimulating abilities

  • attention

  • money

IQ by situation: Sibling status

• birth order and whether a sibling has passed away

• only child: IQ is above average

• born second, older sibling dead: IQ is above average

• born second, older sibling alive: resources are split, and younger’s IQ is slightly less than first child

• the degree to which the family has resources to provide for basic needs and the ability to devote attention to stimulate their children will produce differences in their child’s attention

IQ by situation: Poverty

• limits nutritional resources

• socio-economic status (SES) correlates with IQ

• additional worries about what could go wrong

Mani et al study: scary story to poor and rich groups

• immediate concerns/anxiety make us less able to express our intelligence on an IQ test

• assumption: this reflects everyday behavior

• ppl make less intelligent decisions when they are missing adequate financial resources

IQ by situation: Poverty (Possible reasons)

• parents with high SES are intelligent

  • children inherit higher intelligence

• parents with low SES have fewer resources

  • children may have poorer nutrition, medical care, and/or less intellectual stimulation

• SES may have a direct effect on intelligence

  • due to rumination which distracts them from fully expressing intelligence

Natural Experiment

• see a change in a variable that is systematic, even if the researcher doesn’t control that variable

Quasi-Experimental Design

• aims to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between an independent and dependent variable

• does not rely on random assignment

• subjects are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria

Piaget’s Qualitative Approach

• Piaget asked children to explain their incorrect answers on IQ tests

  • What exactly (mechanisms) are children struggling with on IQ tests?

• Qualitative: no directly testable hypotheses (just wants find out more)

• Generative: Children’s reasoning progresses many ideas

  • children’s reasoning progresses in stage

Competing Models of Children

Child as a Sponge:

• expose children to novel things and they will learn

• dependent, one way transmission, passive

Little Scientist/ Constructivism: (Piaget’s model)

• children naturally seek out info that is interesting to them

  • this changes their environment, and what they are exposed to

• independent, two way interaction, active learners

Constructivism Theory

• knowledge is constructed by the learner

  • organize our learner based on our background into schemas

  • schemas are different for every individual

• disequilibrium is what makes us little scientist

  • we innately and without instruction generate schema and test them against our observations

When do little scientists learn? (Equilibrium/Disequilibrium)

Equilibrium:

• previously learned schema explain infant’s observations

• not interesting, we’re comfortable

Disequilibrium:

• existing schema cannot explain infant’s observations

• something unexpected is happening

• need to revise schema to evaluate what happened

Habituation: transition between disequilibrium into equilibrium

Little scientist in action

1) Novel stimulus appears

• LS: I don’t have a schema for this, what is this? What does it do?

• disequilibrium increases attention to the object

2) stimulus remains stable, child develops schema

• LS: This doesn’t do anything, I predict it won’t do anything in the future

3) Stimulus removed

4) Stimulus returned

• LS: let’s test my prediction

• equilibrium reduces attention to the object

What does Equilibrium/Disequilibrium look like

Equilibrium:

• looks like boredom

• also could be contentment, low arousal happiness

Disequilibrium:

• looks like surprise

• could also be shock, fear, high-arousal happiness

• increase in heart rate, pupil dilation, anxiety/tension

• disequilibrium is similar to an innate emotion that drives or motivates us to learn

Methods for assessing cognitive development

• find a hidden toy behind a screen

• conservation tests

• impossible events

  • this tests understanding of abstract concepts

Critiques of Piaget

Piaget’s 4 stage model is useful and wrong

• stages overlap and blend together

• critical events are gradual rather than threshold

• progression through stages shifting earlier in development

  • paradigms test concepts in different ways

Egocentricism

Our starting point

• “What I see is what everyone around me sees”

• “What I know is what everyone knows”

• “What I believe is what everyone believes”

Slowly we begin to realize:

• not everyone sees what I see, or knows what I know

  • experiences between humans are fundamentally different

• we have different minds

Social Development

During preoperational stage, infants transition from egocentrism to Theory of Mind

• Mind is what constructs out (& others’) reality

• others have minds an d different constructions

• others may have different ___:

  • visual perspective

  • past knowledge

  • internal states/traits

  • beliefs and preferences

Importance of Theory of Mind

• critical to social development, we can’t interact with others if we don’t understand the difference between our minds and their minds

Theory of Mind Study

• mother & child enter lab

• child picks out gifts for self and for mom

  • choosing for mom requires theory of mind

IV:

• mom first

• me first,

• mom first, but me next

DV:

• ratio of correct vs incorrect choice for mom

• assumption: children pick the magazine for mom because they think they will like it better than the frog

Theory of Mind Study: Results

Ratio = incorrect: correct

-Mom first, 7:1

• child’s personal preferences are frustrated

• egocentrically biased choice

  • don’t have theory of mind

-Me first, 1:5

-Mom first, but me next, 1:3

• egocentric bias is more often

• child still get something themselves, so are more likely to make an accurate choice

Theory of Mind: Conclusions

ToM can depend on how it is measured

• if “Mom first”, ToM appears at 5 years

• if “Me first”, ToM appears earlier at 3 years

Explanation”

• suppressing our desires is cognitively demanding

• ToM is also cognitively demanding

• suppression and ToM compete for cognitive resourcesss

• we resources are low, we tend to be more egocentric

Attachment: Developing Social Bonds

• relationship you form with parents at an early age is important to your relationships in the future

• early emotional bonds are vital to social development

Secure Attachment Style

• 55-60%

• caregivers: responsive, consistent

• child: feels worthy, loved, confident

Avoidant Attachment Style

• 20%

• caregivers: distant, consistently unresponsive

• child: desires intimacy, but fears expressing this desire

Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment Style

• 15-20%

• caregivers: unpredictable, inconsistent

• child: anxious, disorganized desires

Disorganized Attachment Style

• 5%

• caregivers: abusive, unpredictable, volatile

• child:unstable, fluctuating self-concept

What behaviors indicate differences in attachment?

Proximity and contact seeking behavior

• baby purposefully approaches caregiver

Contact maintaining

• resistance to release, clinging

Resistant behavior

• hitting caregiver, rigid or avoids being held

• social intimacy needs aren’t met

Avoidant behavior:

• baby does not greet mother, does not gaze at mother

Behaviors in Each Style

Secure: approach & remain with caregiver, no resistant or avoidant behavior

Avoidant: will cling but rarely approach, lots of avoidant behavior

• knows they will be rejected

Anxious/Ambivalent: extreme approach/clinging, resistant

• mix of avoidant and approach behavior

Are parents’ solely responsible for their child’s attachment

• no, biology plays a role as well

• temperament → changes how babies react to parents

  • relatively stable over time

  • mostly set by 3 months old

• serotonin transporter gene 5-HTTLPR

  • 1 or 2 short alleles = mother influences attachment

  • hypersensitive amygdala: baby reacts with more fear to strange situations and likely to remember these instance

  • susceptible to less adaptive attachment styles

• 2 long alleles = secure attachment no matter what

  • resistant to depression throughout life

Types of Temperament

Easy: able to quickly adapt to new routine (easy-going)
- more active and cheerful than others

Slow: react strongly to changes in their routine

-irregular sleeping and eating pattern

-fearful of strangers and new people, but can adapt over time

-less often in a cheerful mood than easy babies

Difficult: react strongly to changes in routines

-slow to adapt to changes and strangers

• might never adapt

-remain fearful of many things and over long periods of time

-disrupted sleep patterns

• caregivers are sleep deprived as a result

Adult Attachment Scale

Secure: “It’s easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me”

Avoidant: “I am comfortable without close relationships. It is important to be independent and self-sufficient”

Anxious/Ambivalent: “I want to be completely intimate with others, but others will not get as close as I would like. I constantly worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them”

Attachment & Looking for Love

Compared to securely attachment

• avoidant are less likely to initiate interactions with goal of romantic relationship

• avoidant expect to fail (& may even self handicap) when attempting to form new relationship

• anxious/ambivalent have conflicting feelings:

  • strongly desire intimacy

  • initiate contact but deeply fear rejection

Attachment & Staying Together

Compared to securely attached

• avoidant have difficulty physically expressing love (casually and sexually)

• anxious/ambivalent have more frequent conflict with partners

  • also fare worse psychologically after conflict