PSY 2012 General Psychology Chapter 8: Thinking and Intelligence

Samuel R. Mathews, Ph.D.

Associate Professor The Department of Psychology The University of West Florida

Intelligence: Early work

• Galton • Saw intelligence as genetically based; • Viewed intelligence as a single construct that encompassed all mental processes (memory, perception, language production, etc.,) • Suggested that culture would be greatly improved if “…talented men were mated with talented women…generation after generation we might produce a highly bred human race, with no more tendency to revert to our meaner ancestral types than is shown by our long established breeds of race horses and fox hounds.” From: Galton (1865). Hereditary Talent and Character,

Macmillan's Magazine

,

12

, 157-166, 318-327.

Intelligence: Early work

• Binet • Saw intelligence as driven by experience • Viewed intelligence as being made up of discrete constructs; he suggested that memory, perception, and other mental constructs were relatively independent and could be impacted by experience • Constructed a test to assess intelligence • Developed the early version of our own intelligence quotient (“IQ”) – The difference between Mental Age and Chronological age • Both perceived intelligence as a “general intellectual ability — the “g factor” (Spearman, 1927) reflects this point of view

Intelligence: Contemporary Views

• Psychometric view is reflected in traditional IQ tests – Stanford-Binet IQ test: • Yields an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) IQ = (Mental Age/Chronological Age) X 100 • Includes verbal and performance (non-verbal) subtests • Individually administered – Wechsler Intelligence tests: • Yields and Intelligence Quotient (same formula) • Includes verbal, quantitative, and performance subtests • Individually administered

Intelligence: Contemporary Views • Crystallized Intelligence:

– One’s knowledge base (e.g. schema, scripts) and the ability to access that knowledge

• Fluid Intelligence

– Mental processes (identify relationships; solve problems, etc.,)

• Cattell (1963) suggests both are necessary

Intelligence: Contemporary Views • Problems with traditional measures:

– Cultural biases (Sternberg, 2004) • Intelligence as defined by success within one’s cultural milieu using resources, making decisions, solving problems, with cultural tools at hand • Alternative to traditional IQ tests: –

Dynamic testing

: » Initial assessment provides a baseline of performance » Intervention is provide in which skills and knowledge are taught » Second testing indicates what the individual has learned; » Gains are considered more accurate indication of intellectual power.

Intelligence: Contemporary Views

• Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory : – Contextual Intelligence (Practical Intelligence): • “Street smarts” • Adaptation to one’s environment – Componential Intelligence (Analytical Intelligence): • Executive Control • Basic mental processes • Elements of Componential Intelligence measured by traditional IQ tests – Experiential Intelligence (Creative Intelligence) • Performance varies based on the novelty of a task • One’s experiences within a culture lead to differential performance • Reflects the ability to cope flexibly and creatively with problems

Intelligence: Contemporary Views

• Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences: – The traditional models of intelligence lend little information on many important areas of knowledge and performance that relate to success in life – Gardner suggested multiple areas of intelligence: • Domains range from linguistic and logical-mathematical to emotional intelligence (see pg. 332, Zimbardo, et al. for complete list) • Some domains can be linked to specific brain functions • Assessment is based on a broad spectrum from paper and pencil tests to observations in so-called real life situations.

Intelligence: Contemporary Views

• Intelligence, Race, Class, & Culture – Galton, Jenson & Heritability of IQ & Racial Differences: • Initial claims that IQ is largely a product of genetics with environmental factors minimized has been refuted with the Scarr & Weinberg study (initial differences were minimized as children reached adolescence) – Social/Economic Class: • Differences IQ attained by members of different socio economic classes most likely attributed to multiple factors: – Health care – Nutrition – Access to equal educational opportunities (in and out of school) – At the core is the definition of intelligence • Differences are most obvious with traditional views and less obvious with more contemporary views (e.g. Sternberg, Gardner)