Intelligence. Susan Magun-Jackson, Ph.D.

Transcription

1 Intelligence Susan Magun-Jackson, Ph.D. Theorists referenced in this chapter: Theresa Amabile Alfred Binet Raymond Cattell Howard Gardner Daniel Goleman J. P. Guilford John Horn K. Warner Schaie Theodore Simon Charles Spearman Robert Sternberg Lewis Terman L.L. Thurstone E. Paul Torrence What is intelligence? This may seem like an easy question because we as human beings often discuss other individuals in terms of their intelligence. Yet, defining this term in a few sentences is not that easy. Which factors influence intelligence, and how do we study them? These are just a few of the questions that we will explore in this reading. We also will define intelligence, describe the various intelligence theories, discuss the various measurements, examine the controversies associated with intelligence testing, investigate creativity, and cover the future direction of intelligence research. By the end of this reading, you should meet the following objectives: (a) define intelligence in general and as it relates to lifespan development; (b) describe the various theories of intelligence development; (c) demonstrate understanding of the various measurements and issues of intelligence testing; and (d) exhibit understanding of creativity. Introduction In this chapter, we will cover various theories of intelligence development. There is a similarity in these two different worldviews in that both intelligence and cognitive development mean the same thing: the humans use their brain to process and adapt specifically to novel situations and their environment

2 from these two worldviews. However, as you will soon see, these viewpoints differ in the meanings of words like ability, adapt, and environment. The intelligence perspective is a branch from the mechanistic worldview and comes from the physics labs in Europe and from behaviorism. Intelligence Development In examining intelligence, we will concentrate on how the individual responds to the environment. The focus is on testing and measurement. This is a quantitative perspective in that one can assign a number to a test or measurement. For example, your height, your weight, and the number of correct answers that you get on a test can be indicated by a number, so those are quantitative measures. Consequently, a numeric score on an intelligence test indicates intelligence, so that by getting the correct answers, we infer that the person has the ability to adapt to new situations and to their environment. Adapting in this quantitative perspective means getting the correct answer on the test. Which in turn gives you a higher score, indicating a higher level of intelligence? The situation or environment is defined as the question(s) on the test. Be aware that understanding or cognitive processing is not a part of the intelligence perspective. If you understand the material, you need to demonstrate your understanding by getting the answers right on a test. The perspective is that if you do not get them right, then you obviously do not understand the material. The focus is not on how well you understand the material or the form of your thought. Instead, the focus is on the contents of your thoughts at that moment and getting the questions answered correctly on a test. From the intelligence perspective, development is considered to be continuous. That is, there is only one underlying process that either improves or declines. Because this perspective is

3 unintuitive, the more problems you answer correctly, the greater your level of intelligence. On the other hand, if you solve fewer problems correctly, you have less intelligence. Cognitive Development In contrast to the study of intelligence, the focus of cognitive is on the individual as an active interpreter and processor of the environment. Cognitive development analyzes how the individual internalizes, processes, and forms theories about a particular situation or the environment. The spotlight is on the activities an individual does within a personal, idiosyncratic environment. The cognitive perspective is often referred to as the organismic worldview. This approach labels how humans use their brains to process and adapt to their environment. Also, with cognitive development, researchers focus on understanding and explaining individual differences and how the differences affect the way the individual is adapting to the ever-changing environment. There are multiple environments because there are multiple people who interpret things in multiple ways. When you were a child, did you play telephone? If so, you sat in a circle and one person would whisper a conversation to the person next to him. That person would, in turn, whisper it to the next person. This would continue until the last person in the circle would receive the conversation and would have to say it out loud. What fun it was to hear how the initial dialogue had so dramatically changed! That happened because even when people are listening to the same words, they interpret them in different ways. Each individual interprets the encountered environment in a different way, based on previous experiences. Cognitive development focuses on the ways that process, interpret, and understand their environments. The spotlight is on the form of thought and the thinking process itself, not the specific content or subject matter (getting the correct answer on a test question). So, when teachers want to teach something, they must understand where their students are coming from and how the students think and process information from a situation or their

4 environments. When teaching a subject, the teacher needs to know how each student processes and understand. Realize that students have different styles of processing and it is very possible that the student may not interpret the material in the way that the teacher intended. The cognitive perspective also involves different forms of knowing, understanding, and processing and is therefore not continuous. Consequently, the cognitive development perspective is more qualitative (e.g., descriptors that do not have a numerical value associated to them) than quantitative. As different forms of knowing mature, individuals become more adequate in or better at adapting to new situations and environments because of the depth (e.g., intensity, strength, power) and breadth (e.g., extent, range, scope, coverage) of their understanding and reasoning. It is assumed in the cognitive developmental perspective that one adapts to new situations and the environment because adaptation is a component of surviving in the world. The adaptive process is within our genetic makeup, our biological pre-wiring as a human. Table 1 compares the two worldviews: Intelligence Development and Cognitive Development. Table 1 Comparisons of Intelligence and Cognitive Development Intelligence Product of thought What one knows The contents of though Quantitative: more is better Focus on tests Focus on control and prediction Ability and adapting mean getting the right answers The more intelligent a person, the more questions they will answer correctly The environment is composed of questions on a test Cognitive Development Process of thinking How one knows Depth and breadth of understanding Qualitative: different forms of thought are more matures Focus on observations Focus on understanding and explanation Ability means to process, to know, and to understand Adapting means to cognitively function the individual lives

5 Early Theories of Intelligence Alfred Binet We will begin our discussion of intelligence by looking at Alfred Binet, because he is associated with the development of the first intelligence test. Briefly, in 1904 Binet was commissioned by the Paris school system, which was overcrowded with children, to develop a measurement that would sort out those children whose intellectual development was inferior to normal intelligence. He and his student, Theodore Simon, developed a test called the 1905 Scale by gathering 50 students (10 students from five different age groups) who were identified as having average abilities. Using these groups, Binet created a baseline measurement of the capabilities of an average child for his age (Brody, 2000). A baseline measurement (a calculation or measurement that is used as a basis for comparison) is a foundation or starting point which represents a standard with which other scores are compared. They called this mental age (M A). For example, if an eight-year-old correctly answers all the questions typical for an eight-year-old normal group, she would have the mental age of eight. On the other hand, if the same child correctly answered all the questions for a mental age of eight plus questions typical for the 12-year-old normal group, her mental age would be 12. The 1905 Scale provided the basis for later psychometric theories and measurements of intelligence. The use of intelligence tests became very popular in the U.S. A German psychologist, William Stern (1914), coined the concept of mental quotient which was the calculation of the mental age (MA) divided by the chronological age (C A) (e.g., MA/CA) of the student. Therefore, after taking the Simon-Binet test, if a child had the mental age (M A) of eight and was chronologically eight years of age, the child would have the mental quotient of one (8/8=1). Lewis Terman (1916) modified the mental quotient by multiplying it by 100 and called this Intelligence Quotient (I Q). I Q can be calculated using the following

6 formula: I Q =M A/C A * 100. Therefore, if an eight-year old tests at the 12-year-old level, she would have an IQ of 150: (12/8 = 1.5, which when multiplied by 100 gives us 150). You can also look at the score for meaning, which is that any number over 100 means that the person solved more problems than did the norming group for her age or grade level. The norming group is the sample that was used to generate what is considered normal. Terman was a researcher at Stanford University in California and also was a strong believer that intelligence is genetically determined. Thus, in his view, an IQ score would be stable (stay the same) across the lifespan. He revised the Simon- the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. It is one of the intelligence tests we still use today. In essence, an IQ score of 100 is the average, or mean, score on intelligence tests (e.g., a 14-year old scores 14 on Mental Age). Since intelligence tests are normed, they are constructed and revised to ensure that the mean continues to stay at 100. Hypothetically, if everyone took this test, all scores will follow a normal distribution as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Normal distribution for IQ scores

7 The majority (68%) of people score within one standard deviation (SD) above or below 100; which on an IQ test is about 15 IQ points. This means that the average IQ score is for normal. IQ scores higher than 115 would indicate that the individual is smarter than average, and IQ scores below 85 would be the slow learner group. Historically, IQ tests are the main source of determining eligibility for special education services (e.g., intellectually delayed services or giftedness). An IQ score of 130 (two standard deviations above the mean of 100) and above has been used as a basic indicator for giftedness (Callahan, 2000). For students to be eligible for special education services under the disability of intellectually delayed (previously labeled mental retardation), a student would have to score less than 70 (two standard deviations below the mean or average of 100) on an IQ test and have significant limitations in adaptive behaviors such as daily living tasks and social skills (Detterman, Gabriel, & Ruthsatz, 2000). Charles Spearman We will continue the discussion of intelligence theory with Charles Spearman, who discovered a psychometrically or statistically common factor among various tasks of intelligence. He called this factor the g factor, the factor of generalized intelligence (Spearman, 1904). Outside of the g factor, there is another factor that composed a whole explanation of intelligence tasks. This is the s factor of specialized abilities that are more unique to the individual. Also, according to Spearman (1904), we all start out with both g and s factors but as we get older and enter different careers, our s factor increases so that we develop a big S factor. That is, our specialized abilities become much larger. For example, when Olivia was in elementary school, she loved reading, writing, math, and piano lessons. As she progressed in middle school and then high school, she found that she really loved math, physics, and chemistry and that she excelled in these areas. By the time she graduated from high school, Olivia knew that she wanted to pursue a degree in engineering. In this case, reading,

8 s for Olivia. As she got older, degree in mechanical L. L. Thurstone L.L. Thurstone, another intelligence researcher, g factor theory. Instead, using a different statistical procedure he demonstrated seven independent factors that he labeled Primary Mental Abilities (Thurstone, 1938). These are: Table 2 Seven Independent Primary Mental Abilities and Description Independent Factors Number facilities Reasoning Memory Spatial perception Perceptual speed Description Basic arithmetic, number manipulations A is to B as C is to what? Read a passage, then answer questions afterward Look at a geometric shape, try to find the same shape in another view A timed test Verbal comprehension Definitions of words Word fluency Knowledge of antonyms and synonyms of words Quite frankly, the Primary Mental Abilities underlie most of the current tests of intelligence. Remember taking the ACT or SAT tests for college entrance? Do you recognize these factors in the tests? Joy Paul Guilford J. P. Guilford (1967) structure of intelligence (SI). It looks like a cube with multiple dimensions. One dimension, the content of

9 thought, represents what you are thinking about; a second dimension represents the operations of thought, or how you are thinking about the contents; and the third dimension as the products of thought, or possible results of how you are thinking about the contents. With this cubic representation, Guilford outlined 120 different kinds of intellectual abilities from the 150 possible combinations. He spent the remainder of his life developing standardized tests for each of the abilities. Best known of the 120 abilities is his test for divergent or convergent abilities. We will discuss this further in this reading when we discuss creativity. Meanwhile, people who score high in convergent abilities can find a compromise for differing opinions, can sum up multiple ideas, can make a summary conclusion from multiple presentation points, and can even shop quickly because they know what they want and get it. On the other hand, people who score high in divergent abilities see merit in each of the different opinions and multiple ideas. These people might, for example, go to the library to study one topic and end up reading articles on a variety of related topics because they are so interesting. They also have difficulty coming up with one conclusion because everything looks so attractive. They would go to the store to buy one thing, spend the day looking, and buying a variety of items that they never expected to buy. Testing Issues When we conduct intelligence tests, it is important to know if the test actually assesses precisely what the test is intended to measure. For our purpose, we will be looking at predictive validity, which is how well performance on the test predicts some type of standard performance. Going back to our definition for intelligence, the ability to process and adapt to new situations and elligence means whatever the test questions are asking. You can be smart on one test and below average on

10 another because the definition of intelligence depends on the questions on the test and how many are correctly answered. The criterion for predictive validity on intelligence tests is success in school, which is translated to mean the grades students receive. Intelligence tests and achievement tests have an approximate correlation (relationship) of.71, which is quite strong. Even though success in school is attributed to school characteristics, family characteristics, motivation, and interest, the fact that intelligence tests have predictive validity with success in school makes administrators very happy. It is important that you understand that correlation is not the same as causation; in other words, just because there is a strong correlation between variables does not mean that one thing causes another. Correlation coefficients give us an idea about the predictive value when you square the coefficient. So if we look at the correlation between intelligence and achievement tests and success in school,.71 squared equals.50 or 50%. In essence, (or equal) chance that intelligence and achievement test scores indicate whether a school is successful in producing successful students. However, even though there might be a correlation, it does not mean that intelligence and achievement tests will necessarily produce successful students (e.g., causation). Intelligence Tests vs. Achievement Tests intelligence. the scores on the test would also increase. Of course, it could work in the opposite direction as well. Also, there is a difference between achievement tests and intelligence tests. Intelligence tests, like the Stanford-Binet or Wechsler Scales g factor. They are used to a Achievement tests,

11 on the other hand, are supposed to be school curriculum-related subject matter content tests (e.g., math and reading). The scores on both types of tests (intelligence and achievement) are given in terms of percentile rankings, usually using national rankings or percentiles. The purpose of achievement tests, therefore, is to provide students, teachers and parents with a profile of each nts (that is, in which subject the student is excelling and in which subject the student is showing difficulty). The purpose is to give information and to help guide instruction for each student. Intelligence Tests and Culture One of the things that we have noticed is that there are racial and social class differences in intelligence test scores. African Americans, American Indians, Hispanics, and Latinos score lower on intelligence tests than do Caucasians and Asian Americans. Realize that the important question is not the mean or average differences between groups but how spread out the scores might be. A few very high scores or low scores can affect the mean score. Also, the spread of the scores indicates the amount of individual differences and the amount of variability that exists in that population. There are other issues about intelligence tests. In the late 1970s, two states were in litigation about IQ and standardized testing. In terms of intelligence and culture, there were concerns about the accuracy and consistency of standardized testing, and whether or intelligence. Questions about the accuracy of a test that provides an assessment of an indiv particular subject domain when administered in a controlled environment that specifies where, when, how, and for how long. Issues about the consistency of such testing protocols prompted further questions surrounding an indiv response to the questions and whether the questions, conditions for administering, scoring procedures, and interpretations are consistent (Whiting & Ford, 2011). In California, students were labeled and

12 tracked based upon standardized tests. Those students who tested low were automatically labeled as low achievers and put together in groups with other low achievers. It also turned out that these students came from predominantly low socioeconomic status and were primarily minority students. In this prominent 1978 case (Larry P. v. Wilson Riles), the judge ruled that the tests were culturally biased. A year later, in 1979, the state of Illinois was sued (Parents in Action in Special Education v. Joseph P. Hannon) for the same allegations. However, the judge ruled that IQ tests were not racially biased or discriminatory against Black students. These two cases forced many educators to look at the tests. It was determined that many of the tests were culture-biased. In essence, students who came from a White environment were more likely to test stories. For example, there might be an analogy on the test that involves a term a student was unfamiliar with, such as a question about the sport of crew. Upper-middle class and upperclass Whites and would be more likely to answer it correctly. Consequently, educators and test researchers examined existing tests and tried to create culture-free tests (in other words, tests that were completely free of any culture). They found that none of these tests were totally culture-free. And so people who create the standardized tests continue to try to determine what culture-free is and to create culture-free tests. Some educators determined that they would create a test that was culture-fair, which would be a test free from language, relying more on pictures and symbols. Thus, the Raven Matrices (Serpell, 2000) test was created. What they noticed, however, is that students who came from environments where there was more usage of numbers and symbols did much better on the tests. Educators question whether the Raven Matrices test is really culture-fair. Consequently, issues of culture-free and culture-fair testing still exist. Modern Theories of Intelligence

13 For the last forty years, several new theories of intelligence have emerged. We are going to focus on three of them. Howard Gardner (1999) proposed a theory of multiple intelligences that differs from the conception. Robert Sternberg (2004) triarchic theory of intelligence focused on intelligence as a means to ensure success in life. And Daniel Goleman (1995) has become quite famous with his theory of emotional intelligence. Howard Gardner Howard Gardner (1999) conceptualized intelligence as qualitatively different kinds of intelligence (or abilities) as opposed to general intelligence ( g factor). His theory of multiple intelligences (MI) lists the different intelligences as linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic (see Table 3 for the listing of these intelligences and example vocations for each). Gardner (1999) cites neurological evidence as a basis for the independence of these abilities, stating that one of these skills is operated by a specific part of the brain. Table 3 tion Examples Intelligence Type Linguistic Vocation Examples Poets, authors, journalists Logical-mathematical Mathematician, computer scientist, accountants, engineers Musical Spatial Bodily-kinesthetic Interpersonal Intrapersonal Naturalistic Musicians, composers Artists, architects, choreographers Dancers, athletes, dancers, surgeons Teachers, salespeople, counselors Theologians, priests, rabbis, cleric Ecologists, farmers, landscapers

14 The linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial intelligences are similar to what American culture typically views as intelligence. The remaining intelligences are not quite so obvious in American culture. We typically view musical abilities (i.e., the sensitivity to pitch, melody, rhythm, tone) as simply a talent or skill. Gardner (1999) suggests musical ability is independent of and qualitatively different from other kinds of intelligence, musical ability is its own type of intelligence. Bodily-kinesthetic refers ability to physically manipulate objects for many tasks that athletes, dancers, surgeons, and others perform on a routine basis. Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to effectively interact with others. Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability for self-understanding and awareness. Naturalist intelligence refers to the ability to understand patterns in nature. Derwin. Derwin did fine in elementary school although he was more interested in sports. When he was in middle school, he decided that he really wanted to be on the basketball team. To strengthen his physical abilities, one of the coaches urged him to take dance classes. Derwin loved them and found that he really improved in his sports abilities. As he went through high school, he received average grades and although still involved in sports, he continued with the dance classes. Consequently, upon graduation, he attended a moderately prestigious dance school after which he received recognition and fame as a dancer. He later became a celebrated choreographer when he retired from dancing. Gardner would classify Derwin as intelligent because of his achievement in dance. He would show intelligence in bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, and musical abilities. Unless an individual excels in all of the domains of the multiple intelligences theory, no one would be designated as generally intelligent. However, when an individual excels in one of the domains, he is determined to be intelligent in that particular domain.

15 Robert Sternberg Robert Sternberg (2003, 2004) considered intelligence in terms of ensuring success in life, meeting self-directed goals (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2006). Why, for example, are some individuals with high IQs unsuccessful in life? To answer this question, Sternberg characterizes successful intelligence as the capability. That is, we develop our own definitions of success within our own socio-cultural context. Sternberg studied graduate students and developed the triarchic theory of intelligence, which states that humans have three intellectual abilities: analytic intelligence, creative intelligence, and practical intelligence. Analytical intelligence is the ability to analyze, judge, evaluate, compare and contrast. Creative intelligence is the ability to design, invent, create, and originate. And, practical intelligence is the ability to use, apply, implement, and put into practice. Can you think of an example for each of these types of intelligences? Students who traditionally do well in school would be considered to have analytical intelligence. On the other hand, students high in creative intelligence do not necessarily do well in traditional schooling. They look at unique answers and solutions to assignments and often do not conform to the educational paradigm of traditional schools. Similar to students high in creative intelligence, students high in practical intelligence do not relate well to traditional schooling. These students may have great interpersonal skills and common sense but receive average grades in school. Stop and think about people you know. Do you know anyone whom you consider to be brilliant but they do not know when to come in from the rain? This person would be high in analytic intelligence but low in practical intelligence. Daniel Goleman In the 1990s, there was a great interest in the social aspects of intelligence (referred to as social intelligence) which produced the concept of emotional intelligence (E I). Salovey and

16 (1990) information to guide While there were other theories about emotional intelligence, Daniel Goleman (1995) became quite famous with his theory of emotional intelligence. According to Goleman, emotional intelligence (EI) is better at predicting an individual s IQ than standardized IQ tests. As such, EI involves four major domains: self-awareness, selfmanagement, social awareness, and relationship management. The self-awareness domain involves the ability to separate feelings from actions. Selfmanagement includes the ability to control anger. Taking the perspective of others is part of social awareness, while relationship management includes the ability to solve relationship problems. Note that some of these domains have already been discussed in other theories. Both Gardner and Sternberg include categories of social intelligence., interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence are categories of social intelligence. In triarchic theory of intelligence, practical intelligence is a category of social intelligence. Modern Issues with Theories of Intelligence While all of these theories are very exciting, there are some questions we must ask. When we look at the different intelligence theories, reliability and validity are important issues, as discussed earlier in this reading. To address this, psychologists have been developing instruments to measure the validity of these three theories. While the various constructs within the theories have passed several validation benchmarks, we still do not have instruments to measure the theories in entirety. Therefore, while these theories may make sense to us, they do not have the empirical evidence that is needed to make them accepted in the world of educational psychology.

17 Intelligence Across the Lifespan Infancy to Early Childhood of how an infant will be studied. From a mechanistic perspective, the infant is viewed as a responder to a situation or the environment, and the environment has only one definition: the surrounding physical world. Infants have limitations, such as the degree of physical and motor development, as well as a lack of language skills that limit their possible behavioral responses. Therefore, the research focuses on what stimulates the infant. This can or the length of time the infant spends playing with an object or looking at it. We are going to look at three attention, habituation, and dishabituation. attention is novelty. Novelty is processed through senses (sight, touch, sound, smell, and taste) and reflected in their movements, like length of time in play. Habituation means the infant becomes disinterested at the repeated presentation of the novel stimulus. This is assessed by how long it takes the infant to lose interest with this novelty. For example, you shake a rattle in front of the infant who sees it, follows it with his eyes, and seems to be completely enthralled with it. After a while, the infant loses interest in the rattle and turns away from it. ke it or where you put it; the infant is totally disinterested. Dishabituation is the renewed attention and responsiveness with the stimulus. Again, this is measured in terms of the amount of time that attention is given. In returning to our rattle example, sometime later, you go back and shake that rattle in front of the infant. You will find that he is suddenly attentive and responsive to its sound and movement. From this perspective, intellectual

18 development is directly related to his physical development, because the infant would have to see/hear/feel/taste/smell in order to respond. We know from early scales of infant development that we get good descriptive data on normal, age-related, infant growth and development (and, therefore, as it measures intelligence). But this information does not do well in predicting later development. One reason is that there is too much individual variation during infancy. Furthermore, infant intelligence tests are primarily dependent upon age-related sensory and motor development, referred to as development. Intelligence tests, as we have seen, are primarily composed of language and verbal factors such as reading, vocabulary, and reasoning. Infant intelligence tests have a zero relationship with later intelligence. They show good validity for normal age progress but no predictive validity regarding later intelligence. We do know, too, that infants do have memories. And they also have the ability to imitate. However, neither of these abilities measures intelligence. There are many people who believe that one can measure infant intelligence. Scale of Infant Development (Bayley, 1993) is often used as an infant intelligent test. However, what it measures is motor and developmental skills, such as response to the sound of a bell, imitating a smile, and picking up a block. The result is a developmental quotient score (D Q) which does not predict future performance on IQ tests. Childhood Measuring intelligence becomes much more probable as the child gets older. Research shows that there is some reliability as children get to be around three to five years old. It is not until children reach early and middle childhood when they acquire language skills that intelligence tests become more reliable or consistent. As they grow older, they are able to answer more difficult questions, thus increasing their mental age. It is during this particular

19 time, too, that parental influence is important. We know that children who are read to at earlier ages are more academically successful in school and also perform at higher levels on IQ and standardized tests. We also know that less television and technology and more discussions and games lead to higher performance as well. This, too, would come from parental influences. Do not forget that these scores, unlike infant intelligence scores, are used for predictive purposes. In early childhood After age two, the IQ rank-order of scores begins to stabilize within individuals, exponentially increasing in stability by age eight. For example, if Louisa performs better than Ava and Christopher, the ranking will be stabilized across elementary school even though their actual IQ scores may fluctuate. Studies have shown that IQ scores for an individual can shift 28 points on average between the ages of two years and seventeen years (Bjorklund, 2000). Adolescence Intellectual growth occurs quite rapidly in early adolescence and then slows down and finally levels off in older adolescence and continue to stabilize as intellectual performance reaches near adult level While some of this growth is due to ability, it corresponds to the changes in brain structure erge. Remember Olivia in the earlier example as she developed strengths in math, chemistry, and physics which led her to an engineering degree? Many students quickly become more interested in and begin to excel in certain academic subjects and activities. This leads to more differences between adolescents. Because of our differing interests and abilities, the become more dominant in late adolescence and adulthood. This is seen as individuals select their majors in college and future careers (Bjorklund, 2000). As individuals continue along their chosen

20 career path, they tend to focus their efforts on improvin are used at work, are not used daily. Adulthood The first to consider intellectual abilities across the lifespan were John Horn and Raymond Cattel (1967). Prior to their research, it was generally accepted (as determined in cross sectional studies) that there is a quantitative increase in IQ scores up to about the ages of 20 to 25, at which age intelligence would begin to decrease. Therefore, once you reach the age of 30- years old, it is all downhill the rest of the way. Does this seem odd to you? Horn and Cattell (1967) conducted their longitudinal research on multiple intellectual abilities by using Primary Abilities. They found that there were some abilities that declined with age and some that did not (see Figure 2). These abilities represent two different kinds of intelligences. The abilities that declined with age are called fluid intelligence. These are abilities that are linked to the biological integrity of an individual. Fluid intelligence is considered to be independent of learning, experience, and education and includes the ability to think and reason abstractly and to solve problems. Some examples of the use of fluid intelligence include coming up with problem-solving strategies and solving puzzles. On the other hand, crystallized intelligence does not decline with age. These abilities prior learning and past experiences. Examples of this are vocabulary, reading comprehension, and word fluency. These abilities are based upon facts and rooted in experiences. As individuals age, they accumulate new understanding and knowledge and thus, crystallized intelligence becomes stronger.

21 High Crystallized Intelligence Fluid Low Age (yrs) Figure 2. Crystallized and fluid abilities Fluid and crystallized intelligences can be thought of as complementary (Knox, 1977). Both are important in life. For example, when Tonya took a math exam, she had to rely on fluid intelligence to come up with a strategy to solve a statistics problem, while at the same time she had to utilize crystallized intelligence to recall the exact formulas needed. These abilities should not be confused with other issues in older adulthood. For example, perceptual speed slows down with age and older adults are, therefore, more disadvantaged than young people when given timed tests. While many believe that older people have problems with memory loss, the reality is that there are fewer declines in memory with age than people think. In fact, most of the declines relate to short-term memory, perhaps things just told to them; what they have forgotten may not have been meaningful or useful information to begin with. Perceptions of Intelligence As discussed earlier in this section, children are able to answer more questions on IQ tests as they get older, so often their mental ages increase. Overall, we usually see these scores

22 stabilize as they become generally consistent with scores obtained earlier. On the other hand, individual scores may fluctuate over time, which is more evident when children grow up in unstable environments. For the most part, we see continuity and change in IQ scores during childhood with IQ scores remaining stable for many children as they get older. As adolescents reach adulthood, IQ scores continue to stabilize. IQ scores from adolescence have proved to be valuable in predicting academic achievement (Neisser et al., 1996). Although a high IQ does not necessarily mean that an individual will do well in school, the two have a strong relationship. There are other factors, such as motivation to succeed, interests, and work habits, that also affect academic achievement. In adulthood, IQ is often related to st success within that occupation. IQ also affects longevity, because people who have higher IQ scores tend to live longer than those with lower scores (Gottfredson, 2004). As discussed earlier in this reading, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies tend to show decreases in IQ after a certain age, but this should not be confused with changes in the speed of cognitive processing. K. Warner Schaie (1983, 1996) is best known for his Seattle Longitudinal Study which was a cross-sequential study begun in 1956 with participants of a health maintenance organization and with ages ranging between 22 and 70. This study was continued and replicated at seven-year intervals over a course of 28 years, giving us a plethora of information about intelligence. Essentially luenced by date of birth (cohort), with subject performing better when they were younger; (b) during the late 60s and 70s, major declines in mental abilities occur; (c) fluid abilities decline more than crystallized abilities during adulthood; and (d) declines in mental abilities are not universal. These findings support the research of Horn and Cattell.

23 IQ is not the same as wisdom. While the research in wisdom is still in its infancy, we do know not to confuse wisdom with high intelligence. Wisdom as defined by Paul Baltes, a leading lifespan researcher, i Staudinger, & Baltes, 2001, p. 351). Not every older adult is wise. Only a few adults have wisdom, which is an acquired rich knowledge base in addition to particular cognitive styles and personality traits. Factors that Influence Intelligence and the I Q Genetics and home environmental factors (e.g., member of minority groups, head of household is unemployed or low-skilled worker, mother did not complete high school, family has four or more children, father is absent from family) are related to individual differences in IQ scores. We can explain lower average IQ scores of some minority groups by looking at culture bias of the tests, low motivation (including anxiety caused by negative group stereotypes), and low socioeconomic status rather than by genetic differences. When minority children grow up in intellectually stimulating homes, they perform better. Average IQ scores have increased in all countries studied over the span of the 20 th century (Flynn, 1998). This is called the Flynn effect. The increase in the US is about three to four IQ points per decade. Most researchers argue that this is due to environmental causes although the Flynn effect is clearer for measures of fluid intelligence than for measures of crystallized intelligence. Flynn maintains that this has occurred because more individuals have increased exposure to tests and test-taking experiences. C reativity In American culture, we refer to creativity quite often. If you were asked to define creativity, how

24 would you define it in your own words? It is really rather difficult. Trying to define creativity is not new. Lewis Terman, who was discussed earlier in this section, was an intelligence researcher who developed the Stanford-Binet test and who wanted to know if there was a relationship between intelligence and creativity (Terman, 1954). In 1921, he began a longitudinal study of students in the Los Angeles school system who had IQs of 140 or greater (genius level), and he surveyed them (1500 individuals) every few years. The data accumulated from this study is still analyzed today, since data was gathered from these individuals for more than 50 years. What Terman found is that while those in the studies had higher education levels, were healthier, and were married longer with fewer divorces as compared to the average IQ individuals in the same age group, not one was a Nobel prize winner or had won any distinguishable award. It was concluded from this study that there is no relationship between intelligence and creativity (the people in his study are commonly ). Divergent thinking When we discussed Guilford earlier in this reading, we were focused on his theory of intelligence. He also played a part in creativity, because he maintained that there are two types of thinkers, divergent thinkers and convergent thinkers (see Figure 3). Convergent thinkers are good at bringing material from many sources to solve a problem so that there is a correct answer. Those who do well on standardized tests are considered to be convergent thinkers. Divergent thinkers, on the other hand, look at a variety of ways to solve the problem. For example, if you were asked to list the usefulness of shoes, how many items would you include? There may be many ways to answer the question.

25 Convergent Thought Divergent Thought Figure 3. Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking Creativity, which is often defined as the ability to produce novel and socially valuable work, requires divergent thinking. Did you include putting a shoe on each hand and having a puppet show as one of the uses of shoes? This would be a divergent way of answering the question previously posed. That is because an exceptionally divergent thinker will uncover many unique solutions apart from a standard solution (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004). From this standpoint, eative capabilities. Torrance Test of C reative Thinking E. Paul Torrence. He created the benchmark method for quantifying creativity, the Torrence Tests of C reative Thinking (Torrence, 1974). He basically dismissed the theory that IQ tests alone were sufficient to measure real intelligence. His assessments were in that they involved simple tests of divergent thinking and other problem-solving skills. These were scored on fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Fluency refers to the total number of interpretable, meaningful, and relevant ideas generated by the individual. Flexibility, on the other hand, refers to the number of different categories of relevant responses. For example, if a student were asked to name as many uses he could think of regarding a brick, and he named 100 different uses for building with a brick, the flexibility of responses would be low since all uses

26 Originality is the rarity of the responses, while elaboration is the quantity of details in the responses. Study of C reativity Earlier in this reading, we discussed the Flynn effect and how IQ scores have increased in the past century. It is believed that enriched environments as well as other factors are making students smarter. With creativity, however, there is a reversed trend. That is, American creativity scores are falling. Kyung Hee Kim (in Bronson & Merryman, 2010), an educational psychology professor at William and Mary College, analyzed almost 300,000 Torrance scores of children and adults. She found that creativity scores that had been steadily rising until 1990 have consistently decreased since then. While research is investigating this current trend, we can look at Theresa Amabile (1987) earlier research on creativity that was published around the time of this shift in trends. According to her studies, there are negative stimuli that affect creativity. These are evaluation, rewards, competition, and constraints. People are less likely to be creative when their product is going to be evaluated. At the same time, people are not as creative when they receive rewards. People also are not as creative when there is a competition involved. Furthermore, people are less likely to be creative if there are rules and regulations imposed on their product. Think back to when you were in K-12. Do you remember any examples of these negative stimuli in your education? Do you remember creativity to be an advantage in your assignments? Exams? The answer is probably not. For example, a student was given the homework assignment to determine the height of the school building. The student was able to access the roof of the building and dropped a long string to the base of the building. He then measured the string and handed in the measurement as the answer to the problem. He received a zero on this homework assignment. Why? He did not use the formula and material provided with the assignment

27 to determine the correct answer. kely that he would use that kind of creativity on any future assignments. Summary In this reading, we have covered intelligence. We have examined factors that influence intelligence as well as how we study them. We have also discussed the various intelligence theories and various measurements, examined the controversies associated with intelligence testing, and investigated creativity. In so doing, we have realized there may be some factors that require further questioning in regards to intelligence and intelligence testing. For example, does motivation, test readiness, test-taking ability, intelligence? Was the test administered correctly? Was the person hungry, fatigued, or did he have too much sugar or caffeine? Was the person taught the material in the first place? Could there possibly be differences among teachers across the country? What about test-taking skills? Has the person learned how to take multiple-choice tests? Ultimately, if all of these factors are equal among students, intelligence. But are they? When discussing creativity, there are different questions we should ask. For example, can every child grow up to be a musician or artist? Is creativity innate? Is creativity necessary in all fields? Can creativity be trained? What can be done to promote creativity in schools?

28 1905 Scale Attention Development Chronological age (CA) Convergent Crystallized intelligence Culture biased Culture fair Culture free Development quotient (DQ) Dishabituation Divergent Keywords Emotional Intelligence Fluid intelligence Flynn Effect Habituation Intelligence quotient (IQ) IQ=MA/CA * 100 Mean Mental age (MA) Mental quotient Primary Mental Abilities Raven Matrices Seattle Longitudinal Study Simon-Binet Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Structural Intelligence (SI) Theory of Multiple Intelligences Torrence Tests of Creative Thinking Triarchic Theory of Intelligence Validity Wechsler Scales Reflective Questions 1. What do you know and understand about intelligence that you did not know prior to reading this reading? Has anything changed? Explain Should schools group students based on their IQ scores? Why or why not? How does your way of thinking about intelligence correspond with the earlier theories of intelligence? Explain. 6. How does your way of thinking about intelligence correspond to more modern notions of intelligence? 7. What are some of the controversies that still exist among intelligence researcher? 8. Thinking of scales? 9. What do you think about measuring intelligence in early childhood? 10. Reflect on your fluid and crystallized intelligence; how are you doing in terms of your intelligence level in late adolescence or adulthood? 11. Are you a convergent or divergent thinker? Explain. 12. What are your thoughts about the role of creativity as a component of intelligence? Explain. 13. Assess your own creativity; under what conditions or circumstances are you most creative? Least creative? 14. As a future teacher, how might you see yourself using IQ scores or the notion of intelligence in your instruction?

29 Theorists Amabile, Teresa (1950- ) is the Edsel Bryant Ford Professor of Business Administration at Harvard University, where she has taught MBA and executive courses on ethics, leadership, and managing for creativity. At Brandeis University, where she was previously employed, she taught the psychology of creativity, social psychology, statistics, and organizational psychology. She received her B.A. in chemistry from Canisius College in 1972 and her M.A. and Ph.D. in psychology from Stanford University in 1975 and 1977, respectively. Her research focuses on everyday life inside organizations and its influence on people and their performance. It incorporates inner work life, innovation, productivity, and creativity as well as the emotions, motivation, and perceptions that individuals experience in the work environment. Amibile has authored over 150 scholarly articles, published in many top research journals in psychology and management, as well as several books, book chapters, and case studies. She has presented her research at many national and international conferences as well as TEDx Atlanta.. Back to the Top Binet, Alfred ( ) was the only child of a physician father and an artist mother. Binet was born in Nice, France, but moved with his mother to Paris in order to study law. He earned his law degree in 1878, intending to go into medicine, and studied natural science at the Sorbonne in Paris. Once he grew tired of formal education, he started reading works in psycholo hypnotism. However, his work in hypnotism did not produce results and motivated by his observations of his own two daughters, he started to research intelligence and individual was the the Binet-Simon Intelligence Test, which he developed with his student, Theodore Simon. Back to the Top Cattell, Raymond ( ) was born and educated in England and earned his Ph.D. in universities in England and the United States, but he spent most of his career ( ) at the University of Illinois. He explored many areas of psychology, including cognition, intelligence, and statistics, but is known for his work with his student, John Horn, which resulted in a theory of fluid and crystallized intelligences, used to explain human cognitive abilities associated with aging. after WWI. He felt that work in this area would be most beneficial for the time. Back to the Top Gardner, Howard (1943-) is currently the John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Theory of Multiple Intelligences is directly opposed to the concept of intelligence as a singular mental force that underlies all potential abilities. He has two books that have been well received