SOP-chapter 5

• What is intelligence? Is it one thing, a general ability? Or is it a multi-factor (e.g., verbal, spatial, social) construct?

• Most definitions of intelligence include phrases such as knowing and understanding
 the reality around us. Intelligence is also defined as a set of mental skills that helps individuals reach a goal. Intelligence is also seen as the ability to use knowledge and skills to overcome obstacles. And finally, many, including Einstein, argue that intelligence is defined as helping one to adapt to a changing environment.

• Intelligence is inseparable from cognition, diversified processes by which the individual acquires and applies knowledge. It usually includes processes such as recognition, categorization, thinking, and memory. Altogether, cognitive development is neither totally culturally relative nor completely uniform everywhere.

•  Cattell – argued that "G" or general ability was made up of 2 components – Fluid intelligence which is free from social influence (reasoning & using info) and Crystallized intelligence (skills & knowledge). BUT, this isn’t absolute!

•  Gardner – multiple intelligence has since argued for 9 types includes – language, music, logic & mathematical reasoning, spatial skills, body, social, self.  Based largely on the existence of savants (think “rainman”)

• Sternberg developed a  triarchic theory that focuses on info. processing – deals w/ 1. info-processing & other cog. processes, 2. the efficiency & effectiveness of their thought processes, and 3. situational influences (context). He argues that what’s intelligent depends on the sociocultural context in which it occurs! And thus, part of this is street smarts & adaptability as well as how this relates to the external world (experience). He also includes the cognitive perspective that automatization counts – or how automatic experience & practice has made your info-processing system

• Ceci’s Bioecological Theory of Intelligence (Ceci, 1993) holds that not only do biological factors play a critical role in the development of intelligence but further, that context also plays an active role. He argues that there are four types of context:

1. physical, or external stimuli that may influence expression or development of intelligence

2. social, or socially appropriate knowledge (i.e., sex role stereotypical behavior)

3. mental or knowledge and representation

4. historical, which is how the time you live in affects the development of intelligence.

• These four types of context can either facilitate or hinder cognitive abilities, as well as determining which, when, and where strategies are acquired and

In most areas of psychology, we come up with a theory and then a way to measure that, In intelligence this is not the case. The first test was developed by Termen and then Binet came along and developed the more widespread measure (they compared mental age to chronological age. So If you are 10 do you know less then the average 10 year old, the same, or more then). These were measures not to measure some lofty construct, "intelligence", but to predict school performance. And they do that pretty well. The score may correlate with heaps of other things but the tests are merely designed to predict how well you'll do in school based on the way you think. Because of this, many Argue that IQ tests have little to do with intelligence theories.

• Some argue that intelligence is whatever the IQ tests measure

• In psychology, most attention has been given to the so-called psychometric approach to intelligence. This view is based on the assumption 
that our intelligence can ―receive a numerical value.

In the US we often use the Wechsler family of tests (WIPSY, WISC, and WAIS, preschool, children, adults) for IQ testing. Most people are never tested because 95% are in the "normal range". The bottom 2.5% are typically identified very early (kinds with CP, Autism, Down syndrome, etc.). So out of the bulk of school children, it is only 2.5 out of 100 that are truly "high IQ". There is NO reason to pay someone to test your IQ! If you were top 2.5% you would most likely already know it! 

• the WISC and WAIS produce similar means & distribution

• They also yield an overall score & 2 sub scores of verbal / performance.

• Both of these ask info. that differs in familiarity (i.e., knowledge – not culturally sensitive) – also requires knowledge comprehension & use of English.

• Today various tests show differences in intelligence scores among large cultural groups. For example, in the United States, Asian Americans (of East Asian origins) score the highest, followed by European Americans, Hispanics, and lastly African Americans. Thus, on the average, African American schoolchildren score 10–15 percent lower on a standardized intelligence test than white schoolchildren.

 In an attempt to explain some group differences on intelligence test scores, Sternberg 
suggested distinguishing between intelligence and intelligent behavior. Intelligence, from his standpoint, is a mental process that may or may not result in particular behavioral patterns. These patterns of intelligent behavior may vary from culture to culture. Something considered to be intelligent among members of one culture may not be viewed as such in other cultures. (See above diagram of Sternberg's theory) 

• One particularly interesting study involved the context specific mathematical abilities of 9-15 year old Brazilian street vendors (Ceci, 1993). Children computed school-type math problems and math problems in common situations that the children encountered in day-to-day life, such as customenr related situations. They found that problems presented in customer-vendor transactions were solved more easily than the same question in a decontextualised (i.e. school-type) context. Children answered 98% of the contextually related problems correctly as opposed to 37% of the traditional school type problems.   Thus, mathematical ability in South American children appears to be highly context dependent.   Other researchers have extended this finding by determining that this is not a schooling effect, as schooled children have the converse effect of difficulty solving school type problems in another context (Schuber-Leoni & Perret-Clermont, 1980).

• We tend to see several environmental factors that can ‘hurt’ IQ e.g., your relationship to your mother, number of sib’s in the home, parents education level & job, etc.

• Perhaps the most pervasive difference comes from a low-SES background – (this accounts for a 10 – 20 PTAs. below mid-class). Why? poorer nutrition, less intellectually stimulating, disruptive family experiences, etc.

• According to the nativist approach to intelligence, human cognitive phenomena are inborn. 
They unravel as a result of biological ―programming, and environmental perception requires little active construction by the organism. There is evidence that heredity plays an important role in human intelligence. However, genetic links for individual differences and similarities do not imply that group differences—on the national level, for example—are also based on genetic factors.We tend to see several environmental factors that can ‘hurt’ IQ e.g., your relationship to your mother, number of sib’s in the home, parents education level & job, etc.

• Perhaps the most pervasive difference comes from a low-SES background – (this accounts for a 10 – 20 PTAs. below mid-class). Why? poorer nutrition, less intellectually stimulating, disruptive family experiences, etc.

• According to the nativist approach to intelligence, human cognitive phenomena are inborn. 
They unravel as a result of biological ―programming, and environmental perception requires little active construction by the organism. There is evidence that heredity plays an important role in human intelligence. However, genetic links for individual differences and similarities do not imply that group differences—on the national level, for example—are also based on genetic factors.

• Some specialists imply that most intelligence tests benefit specific ethnic groups because of 
the test vocabulary—words and items used in
the test questions. Tests may contain internal
bias because they use words that are familiar 
to only some groups. As a result, members of these groups receive higher scores than those who do not belong to these groups.

A clear example of the effects a culture can have on traditional math strategies can be seen in the influence of linguistics on strategy development. Miller, Smith, Zhu and Zhang (1995) compared the addition strategies of Chinese and American children. As language affects the speed in which numbers can be verbalized, Chinese number words can be pronounced quicker than English number words. In Chinese the names for numbers above ten were formed by adding a unit to the base of ten (e.g. “twelve” is stated as “ten-two”). Thus, counting is more difficult for an English-speaking child as they must learn to speak more numbers than a Chinese speaking child does. Comparisons of the two groups of children revealed that not only do Chinese children begin to outperform English children at about age four (when children begin to count past ten); further, by kindergarten, there are significant differences between the distribution of addition strategies used by the two groups. Chinese children are more likely to count verbally while American children count on their fingers or retrieve answers from memory (Miller, et. al, 1995).

• Many environmental conditions have been
found to influence performance on intelligence
tests. Among them are availability of
and access to resources, variety of perceptual experiences, predominant type of family climate, educational opportunities, access to books and travel, presence or absence of cultural magical beliefs, general attitudes, and cultural practices.

• Intelligence scores are, in general, positively correlated with the socioeconomic status of
the individual and the link between socioeconomic conditions and test performance shows at an early age. A child’s IQ and the socioeconomic status of the child’s parents are also positively correlated. An affluent and educated family is likely to provide a better material environment for a child and also has more resources to develop the child’s intellectual potential than a poorer family. Poverty is responsible for a variety of indirect impacts on the intellectual development of children and adults.

• In the United States people with high IQ scores are disproportionally represented 
among doctors, scientists, lawyers, and business executives. Individuals with low intelligence scores are disproportionally represented among people on welfare, prison inmates, single mothers, drug abusers, and high school dropouts.

• There is a difference in the way people across cultures value and construe intelligence. For instance, the conceptualization of intelligence
as quick and analytic is not shared in all cultures. If one group’s concept includes being detailed and precise in responding, but the other group does not mention these features (and mentions improvisation as an element of intelligence) then precision cannot be used as a criterion according to which the two groups are compared.

North American research has shown that context affects strategy choice and efficiency, theory of mind tasks, and acts to increase performance on cognitive tasks (see Ceci, 1993; Ceci & Liker 1986;). In an expert – novice paradigm, Ceci and Liker (1986) looked at racetrack experts’ mathematical abilities. Fourteen experts and 16 non-experts (matched for IQ, education, and attendance at the track) were assessed for knowledge, accuracy, and handicapping abilities. They found that experts, even with low IQ, used implicit algorithms that weighted several variables, models far more complex than ones used by novices with high IQs. However, IQ tests revealed a negative correlation with the expert’s ability to think in complex mathematical terms at the track and think complexly on an IQ test. To examine the extent of the domain specificity of subjects’ mathematical abilities to handicap, Ceci and Liker (1986) performed another experiment with two of the subjects from the racetrack study (1 high IQ & 1 low IQ). They comprised a series of fictitious stock market problems that required the same complex mathematical formula used at the track to see if subjects were able to spontaneously generate the strategy trans-contextually to the stock market. They found that only after subjects were informed to use the same formula that they use at the track did they perform well. These studies demonstrate that in some situations, context has more of an effect than does a construct believed to be both highly biologically based and socially prized as intelligence.

• According to a theory, there are differences in cognitive styles revealed by Western and East Asian students: students from China, Korea, and Japan tend to be more holistic in their perceptions than do students of Western descent.

• Cognitive processes have cross-cultural similarity but may also develop in different ways
 according to specific cultural norms and societal demands. People develop cognitive characteristics best adapted to the needs of their lifestyle. Cross-cultural findings suggest that differences in categorization, memorization, labeling, creativity, and formal reasoning may be rooted in cultural factors. Various cultural groups categorize stimuli differently in terms of their specific cultural experiences associated with these objects. Many cognitive processes can develop either in similar or in different ways according to specific cultural norms and societal demands.

• U.S. children, generally, are allowed more freedom in choosing school activities than their
overseas counterparts. The emphasis is typically placed on individual development, enjoyable activities, and respect for the child’s personality. In Asian countries, on the
contrary, the active promotion of the mathematical development of children is crucial. From the beginning the child learns rules of discipline, perseverance, and sacrifice for the sake of educational goals.

• Some ethnic minorities may display the so-called low-effort syndrome, or low level of motivation on intelligence tests. This typically suggests that such individuals do not try to excel on these tests because they believe that they will not go to college anyway, the tests are biased against them, and test results are unimportant.

 Overall, in developed Western societies, high IQ scores are correlated with social success. The situation with IQ testing and scores may be changing, however. There is an interesting tendency of a continuous and steady worldwide rise in intelligence test performance. Detected primarily in developed countries, 
this effect stands for a three-point increase in IQ scores every 10 years and may be attributed to educational efforts and technological developments.

 Key Terms

Cognition: A general term that stands for a series of processes by which the individual acquires and applies knowledge.

Cognitive Style: An individual way in which individuals organize and comprehend the world.

Creativity: Originality or the ability to produce valued outcomes in novel ways.

Empirical Reasoning: Experience and cognitive operations drawn from everyday activities.

Field-Dependent Style: A general cognitive ability of an individual to rely more on external visual cues and to be primarily socially oriented.

Field-Independent Style: A general cognitive ability of an individual to rely primarily on bodily cues within themselves and to be less oriented toward social engagement with others.

Formal Reasoning: Basic cognitive operations based on abstract analysis of given premises and deriving a conclusion from them.

Intelligence: Global capacity to think rationally, act purposefully, overcome obstacles, and adapt to a changing environment.

Low-Effort Syndrome: Low level of motivation on intelligence tests based on the belief that the tests are biased and test results are unimportant for success in life.

Nativist View: The view that all cognitive phenomena are inborn, that they unravel as a result of biological “programming,” and that environmental perception requires little active construction by the organism.

Psychometric Approach to Intelligence: A view based on an assumption that our intelligence can “receive” a numerical value.