Chapter 9 Intelligence Definition Classic verbal reasoning visualspatial

Chapter 9 - Intelligence Definition • Classic = verbal reasoning & visual-spatial problem-solving • Neglects other aspects

Theories of Intelligence A. Psychometric Theory • Traits on which individuals differ

• Findings: - General mental ability (Spearman’s g) - S (special abilities) - Verbal vs. problem-solving - Fluid vs. crystallized

IQ & Aging • Crystallized increases through life • Fluid increases to young adulthood, then declines • Slower processing speed

• IQ tests based on psychometric theory • But only measure part of intelligence

Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory • Information-processing • How person processes information

3 Aspects of intelligent behavior: • Context - “intelligent” depends on context • Experience - doing well on familiar tasks is NOT intelligence - task must pose a challenge - BUT automatizing common tasks = intelligence

• Components/skills - must examine person’s cognitive processes in addition to answers

Incorporating into assessment • Test behavior - how person approaches tasks (components/skills) • Background - parents’ occupations & home environment (experience) • Other observations (context)

Measuring Intelligence • Test Construction - Select items - Norms Administer to standardization sample Scoring standards are based on group’s performance Group should be representative

- Standardized Testing Give test in same way to everyone - Reliability Assess the test’s consistency (over time, over examiners, etc. ) IQ is stable

Reliability & Error X=T+E • X = person’s score • T = person’s actual ability • E = error in measuring person’s ability

Sources of Error 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Person taking the test Situation Examiner Test content Time

- Validity Does test measure what it is supposed to measure? Compare test performance with related behavior

Infant & Toddler Tests • Measure development - not IQ (& may not be correlated) - how close development is to average for age (DQ) - to identify children at risk

Gesell Developmental Scales • 4 scales (adaptive, motor, language, personal-social) • Normed on small group of middle-class kids

Bayley Scales (2 -30 months) - ability to manipulate toys • Mental Scale - learning • Motor Scale - controlling body • Behavior Record - emotional adjustment

• Most commonly used • Normed on 1, 700 normal kids race/sex/geographic area/urban-rural/parent education

Child & Adult Tests History Binet-Simon Scale - First intelligence test (1905) • To identify “dull” kids for remedial work • Test was reliable • Test distinguished dull, average, bright by teacher ratings • Reliable & valid

Binet: mental age • Age at which child performs

Stanford-Binet (for ages 3 -13) • 1916 – Terman • Normed on 1000 American kids

Terman: intelligence quotient (IQ) = MA x 100 CA 100 is average (MA=CA) - To compare kids at different ages - Problem: Still gives age at which child performs, not comparison to own agemates

Deviation IQ • Compare kids to same-age peers

4 Main Tests Stanford-Binet (2 -90+) • 2 hours • Norms are representative (4, 800 people) (SES, race, age, sex) • 15 subtests • IQ + other scores

Pros: • Best test for very high/low IQs**** • Wide age span • 2 equivalent forms • Excellent norms

Cons: • Lengthy • Difficult to administer • Lower examiner reliability

3 Wechsler Tests. 5 -1. 5 hours • WPPSI-III (2. 6 -7. 3) WISC-IV (6 -16. 11) WAIS-III (16 -89) • Also WASI (brief, ages 2 -89) • 11 -13 subtests • IQ + other scores

Subtests Verbal • Information • Digit Span • Vocabulary • Arithmetic • Comprehension • Similarities

Visual-Spatial • Picture Completion • Picture Arrangement • Block Design • Object Assembly • Digit Symbol

Pros: • Shorter • Easier to administer • Most commonly used • Census-based norms • Can compare performance across ages/tests • For ages 6, 7 & 16, can pick best test

Con: • Not as useful for IQ extremes - important for MR

Wechsler IQ Classifications 130+ 129 -129 110 -119 90 -109 80 -89 70 -79 <69 Very Superior High Average Low Average Borderline Mentally Retarded

K-ABC (2. 5 -12. 5) 45 -75 minutes • No IQ score • Composite • Sequential/Simultaneous Processing - Sequential = in a series - Simultaneous = together

Pros: • Differences in Seq/Sim can suggest interventions • Flexible administration (hints, prompts) • Short/quick

Cons: • Unclear distinction between Sequential & Simultaneous • Shorter age range • Norms under-represent disadvantaged blacks & Hispanics**

Mc. Carthy Scales (2. 5 -8. 5) • 45 -60 minutes • No IQ • General Cognitive Index + 6 subscales

Pros: • Gives profile of abilities - for kids with learning problems • Includes motor coordination • Census-based norms • Very short

Cons: • Few abstract or social judgment problems • Restricted age range*

Use of IQ tests Historically • 1905 - to identify kids needing remediation • 1940 s & 50 s - widely given to categorize • 1960 s - aware of abuses, testing declined

Current uses • To diagnose problems • To rule out IQ problems • To identify ways to help NOT simply to place children in classrooms

To diagnose a learning disability • Normal intelligence (IQ) • Performing below level in 1+ subject (on achievement test)

Factors that Influence IQ Scores Heredity – Family, Twin, & Adoption Studies IQ correlations are higher: • For more closely related people • For MZ than for DZ twins • For MZ than for non-twin siblings • For biological relatives - grows with age (3 vs. 7) Strong influence of heredity on IQ

Environment/Socioeconomic Status (SES) • Twin & Family studies - imperfect correlation for MZ twins - correlations higher if raised together • Adoption Studies - some correlation with adoptive parents & siblings

• Impoverished Environments - lower than average IQs for kids in poor communities • Enriched Environments - when community is enriched, average IQ rises - impoverished kids placed in advantaged adoptive families show IQ increases

• IQ does correlate with SES • Significant influence of environment/SES

Race - General findings • Asian > Caucasian > Hispanic > African. American/Native American

Much overlap among the groups • More variability within than between groups • Group differences don’t explain why • Group differences don’t address any individual’s performance • Differences often accounted for by SES

4 Theories 1. Genetic - Jensen/Rushton • Racial differences are genetic because they are stable • Because IQ is equally due to genetics within any race, differences between races must also be due to genetics

Criticism: • Individual differences may be genetic and group differences may be environmental

Rushton: More “white” genes = smarter person Findings: • IQs of mixed-race kids are not lower than IQs of Caucasians • IQs of blacks don’t differ by number of white ancestors -> NO support for genetic theory

2. Test Bias • Tests measure cognitive skills & knowledge of middle-class Caucasians • Testing culture-based experience • Tests are in standard English

Revisions • “Culture-fair” tests • Revision of standard tests Findings • Caucasians still perform better

Conclusion • Test bias may not be the reason • Or tests are still culture-laden

3. Motivation • Lower class and ethnic minority kids may be less motivated on these tests • Discrimination -> lower self-esteem & motivation

Findings: • Friendly examiners & flexible administration raise IQ by 7 -10 points • K-ABC halves race difference • But: Caucasian kids also score higher in these situations

Conclusion • Test procedures & motivation may bias results • But don’t fully explain race differences

4. Environment/SES • Low SES environments are less conducive to intellectual development • Parents may have fewer resources

Evidence • African-American kids who move to better environments show IQ jumps • Lower-class African-American kids adopted into middle-class homes have average+ IQs • SES statistically accounts for most racial differences****

• SES is strongest explanation • Test bias & motivation may play more subtle roles

Mental Retardation Definition • Subaverage intellectual functioning - IQ < 70 • AND poor adaptive behavior skills - pattern of low functioning

MR Levels 1. Mild (55 -69) - “Educable” - majority • Often self-sufficient • May reach 3 rd - 6 th grade level

Moderate (35 -55) - “Trainable” • Developmental delays • Simple communication • Sheltered workshops

Severe (20 -35) • Large developmental delays • Understand some speech • Routines & supervision • Some daily living skills

Profound (< 20/25) • Nursing care • May not be able to walk/talk • Poor/no daily living skills

Life Outcomes All retarded people (mild/moderate) • Worse than non-retarded peers • But better than stereotypes suggest - majority (80%) of males work skilled labor & retail - most are self-supporting - most married - life satisfaction

• Conclusion - Sternberg’s contextual intelligence (not measured with IQ)

• Severe & Profound - institutionalization BUT, a very small percentage of MR population

Mentally Gifted Terman’s “Termites” (1921) - 1500 kids with IQ > 140 As kids • Weighed more at birth • Walked & talked sooner • Puberty earlier/health better • Mature & well adjusted • Classroom leaders

As adults • Fewer psychological & health problems • Higher marital/sex satisfaction • Many college graduates • Many notable careers

Why better in all domains? • IQ • Home - parent education - fewer divorced parents

Creativity Definition • No standard • Imagination, originality • Different from intelligence • Reach goal in novel way (useful & unusual)

Ways to measure: • Divergent thought - originality • Ideational fluency - many ideas • Consensual assessment - others agree that something is creative • Remote associations - see relationships among ideas that are remote from one another

For each set of words, think of 4 th word related to all 3 • • • Rough Food Hearted Dark Canadian Tug Cold Catcher Feet Shot Golf Gravy Beer Hot Bitter Sun Sandwich Show

• • Attorney Magic Arm Type Self Pitch Coal Ghost Spending Power Peach Story

To increase creativity: 3 methods Brainstorming • People alone are often more creative Synectics • Use of analogies in creative thinking • Look to other areas for a solution • Used in industry but no research

Incubation • More likely to solve difficult problem if delay between periods of work • Plausible but seldom demonstrated

Why not more effective? Social Factors • Evaluation decreases creativity

Other conditions • When someone is watching you work • When you are offered a reward • When you must compete for prizes • When someone restricts your choices about how you can express creativity Creativity seems to be more personal/private