intelligence

Spearman’s uni-factorial theory?
Spearman analysed batteries of cognitive tests using multi-factorial analysis, and found that there was one factor which predicted performance in all the different cognitive tasks
1 of 91
examples of the factor that predicted cognative testes?
i.e. if you did well on one of the cognitive tests, you tended to do well on all the other
2 of 91
what is the G factor?
it is the idea that intelligence is stable (the same) across all cognitive domains
3 of 91
what did these cognative testes show?
These cognitive tests also showed that participants who performed well at one point in time, did well in later tests as well, suggesting that ‘g’ is stable over time
4 of 91
what does this suggest?
This suggests that there may be an individual, perhaps genetic, factor involved, as these factors remain stable over time, whereas situational factors are subject to change and therefore would cause fluctuations in performance in cognitive tasks.
5 of 91
G factor explanation?
You can think of ‘g’ as your maximum potential capability for reasoning, mental manipulation of information, and problem-solving; similar to a computer, a person who scores high on g factor intelligence has a better processor
6 of 91
G factor explanation 2?
which allows them to work faster and consider more data at one time (i.e. like the difference between using an old Nokia and an iPhone X).
7 of 91
G factor explanation 3?
However, your ‘g’ factor may not result in you being more knowledgeable because, like your phone, it is the software (apps) that you load on it
8 of 91
example from explination 3?
experiences and learning in humans, that determine what useful functions it is able to carry out, such as communicating with people, playing chess, managing your schedule.
9 of 91
Gardner’s multi-factorial theory of multiple intelligences?
Gardner’s definition of intelligence is more broad; he argues that people can be specialist in some cognitive abilities and not others, so the ‘g’ factor cannot explain their performance. Gardner called these abilities modalities.
10 of 91
Gardner’s multi-factorial theory of multiple intelligences? 2
He posits that there are 8: Bodily-Kinaesthetic (coordinated, good motor skills, use their bodies to convey ideas)
11 of 91
applications for studing 1?
Application for studying: role plays or skits Intrapersonal (understand themselves well: their biases, motivations, the way they learn…)
12 of 91
application for studying 2?
Application for studying: opportunities to reflect on feedback and create own targets Interpersonal (good communicators; able to understand others’ thoughts and emotions well)
13 of 91
applications for studying 3?
Application in classroom: Group-work and discussion Visual-Spatial (can mentally manipulate objects, i.e. mental rotation; good at visualising)
14 of 91
applications for studying 4?
Application for studying: mind mapping, diagrams, making models Naturalistic (take a scientific mind set to exploring the natural world)
15 of 91
applications for studying 5?
Application for studying: field work Logical-Mathematical (ability to reason, problem-solve, and identify patterns)
16 of 91
applications for studying 6?
Application for studying: problem-solving puzzles, dilemmas Musical (recognising rhythm, being able to compose, performing)
17 of 91
applications for studying 7?
Application for studying: use of mnemonics, raps and songs Verbal-linguistic (good teachers, readers, writers, and speakers)
18 of 91
applications for studying 8?
students tutoring others, presentations, note-taking, summarising from hand-outs/ text book.
19 of 91
applications for studying 8 extra?
These 8 were selected based on criteria such as evolutionarily important for survival, area of the brain controlling the function can be isolated and is distinct (separate) from areas responsible for the other modalities
20 of 91
applications for studying 8 how is it supported?
it is supported by experimental research and psychometric testing
21 of 91
Cattell’s GF-GC theory? 1
e is hierarchical, i.e. it assumes g factor is the most important predictor of performance on cognitive tasks, but that there are two sub-categories of g: Fluid
22 of 91
Cattell’s GF-GC theory? 2
which are the skills you need to successfully acquire and use knowledge, like problem-solving, knowing how to efficiently learn/ remember information, and deduction.
23 of 91
Cattell’s GF-GC theory? 3
The other sub-category is Crystallised, which is the subject-specific knowledge you build through learning/ experience.
24 of 91
BIOLOGICAL FACTORS OF INTELLIGENCE, NUTRITION?
Good nutrition leads to better cell growth and function, resulting in improved neural structures and neurotransmission (relaying of messages) in the brain, which will enhance how quickly the brain is able to process information.
25 of 91
Evidence, Lucas et al. (1998)?
found that pre-term babies who were breastfed had higher cognitive skills aged 7.5-8.0 than bottle fed babies, particularly in language based cognitive skills.
26 of 91
Schoenthaler et al. (1991)?
found that when testing school children aged between the ages of 6 and 12, children who had lower than satisfactory levels of nutrition improved most on IQ scores when taking daily mineral and vitamin supplements
27 of 91
Schoenthaler et al. (1991)? 2
gaining at least 15 IQ points on those given the placebo.
28 of 91
Critiquing evidence?
The influence of nutrition may be limited, and only influential in interaction with other factors.
29 of 91
Der et al. (2006)?
found that breastfeeding had little or no impact on a child’s intelligence in full-term babies
30 of 91
Der et al. (2006)? 2
So it appears to only be a factor in increasing a child’s intelligence if they have already been under-nourished. * Early nutrition, as an explanation for intelligence, is reductionist, ignoring the interaction between genes and upbringing.
31 of 91
Caspi et al. (2007)?
found that children with one version of the FADS2 gene scored seven points higher in IQ tests if they were breastfed, whereas children with another variant of this gene no showed such benefits associated with breastfeeding.
32 of 91
IGF2R GENE?
Intelligence may be inherited from parents
33 of 91
Evidence,Hill et al. (1999)?
tested UK children aged 6-15. Chromosome ‘6’ was compared in the ‘super bright’ group, with an average IQ of 136, and the average IQ group, with a mean IQ of 103.
34 of 91
Evidence,Hill et al. (1999)? 2
A specific form of the gene IGF2R (insulin-like growth factor 2 receptor) occurred in twice as many children in the high-IQ group as in the average group – 32% versus 16%, suggesting this gene contributes to intelligence.
35 of 91
Critiquing evidence, Plomin et al. (1998)?
found that a larger proportion of the children with a high IQ did not have the IGF2R gene than did have the gene. Similarly, some of the average IQ group did have the gene, but still had only average IQ.
36 of 91
Critiquing evidence 2?
Genes only have a very limited influence on intelligence, meaning environment (nurture) must be more influential.
37 of 91
Curtis et al. (2008)?
took cheek swabs and from these scanned the genes of more than 7,000 children with a device called microarray¬ a small chip that can recognise half a million distinctive snippets of DNA.
38 of 91
Curtis et al. (2008)? 2
Found only one gene that accounted for variation in IQ scores at a significant level, explaining only 0.4% of the variation in IQ scores.
39 of 91
key research?
Van Leeuwen et al., 2008
40 of 91
Van Leeuwen et al., 2008, aim?
To assess the presence of assortative mating (that individuals mate with those with similar traits, i.e. intelligence), the extent genes and environment interact, and the heritability of intelligence in childhood using a twin
41 of 91
Van Leeuwen et al., 2008, aim? 2
(comparing monozygotic/identical twins who share 100% of their genes with dizygotic/fraternal twins who share approximately 50% of their genes
42 of 91
what does it control for?
controls to some extent for family environment which is likely to be the same for twins and cohort effects as they were born in the same year) family (comparing siblings who share approx. 50% genes, and parents with offspring who share 50% genes)
43 of 91
sample?
Twins were recruited from the Netherlands Twin Registry (NTR) at (VU) university in Amsterdam. Families were recruited if they had twins in 1995/6, had one other child aged 9-14,
44 of 91
sample 2?
and had no major illnesses in their medical history. Only families where the biological parents were still together were selected: mean age of parents was in the 40s. The mean age of twins at the time of cognitive tests was 9 years.
45 of 91
research method?
correlational study: the researchers were looking for relationships between intelligence and biological factors, and intelligence and environmental factors
46 of 91
procedure?
Parents signed informed consent forms for their children and themselves. Children also signed their own consent forms. * Cheek swabs, for DNA, were collected at home to ensure identical twins were genetically identical
47 of 91
procedure 2?
On the morning of the same day, children completed Raven’s SPM (test re-test reliability of 0.88) and adults the Raven’s APM (test-retest reliability of 0.91), in separate rooms. They were allowed to answer at their own pace.
48 of 91
procedure 3?
Testing took approximately 5 hours, including two short breaks and one longer lunch break. * The Rasch statistical model was used to analyse Ravens to control for difficulty of questions.
49 of 91
results/ conclusions?
There were no significant differences in IQ scores between males and females across all groups (parents, siblings and twins) suggesting gender and intelligence are not related.
50 of 91
results and conclusions? 2
The variance (differences) in IQ scores in the siblings was significantly larger than in the monozygotic twins. The more genes we share, the more similar our traits (phenotypes) are.
51 of 91
results and conclusions 3?
Correlations between Raven test scores were higher for identical twins, than siblings, and non-identical twins. Again suggesting that intelligence is inherited.
52 of 91
results and conclusions 4?
They found additive genetic factors (the influence of interaction between several genes, called your genotype) accounted for 67% of variance in IQ scores, suggesting that genes are the most influential factor in determining intelligence.
53 of 91
results and conclusions 5?
Multi-factorial analysis estimated the gene-environment interaction could account for a further 9% of variance in IQ scores, i.e. environment influences the IQ score most in those who had a genetic predisposition toward low IQ ( compare with parents)
54 of 91
results and conclusions 6?
Parents with high IQ’s tended to have all of their children achieving high IQ’s. Whereas parents with low IQ’s had children with a mixture of high and low IQ’s.
55 of 91
conclusion for 6?
This therefore suggests that children who are born with low IQ’s can be effected more so by environmental factors compared to children who are born with high IQ’
56 of 91
what does conclusion for 6 provide?
Therefore providing evidence for genotype-environment interaction.
57 of 91
results and conclusions 7?
As most of the findings supported can be explained by genetic factors, it was concluded that cultural/environmental factors did not have a significant effect on intelligence
58 of 91
results and conclusions 8?
There was a significant correlation in the Raven IQ test scores between parents i.e. if one parent had a high score, so did the other. This strength of the correlation provides evidence for assortative mating
59 of 91
results and conclusions 9?
(that people mate with those of similar intelligence), and particularly a phenotypic assortment explanation (that they deliberately select their mate based on the similar trait- I.e. IQ) over a social homogamy explanation
60 of 91
what is social homogamy explanation?
that people end up with a mate with similar traits because they tend to share the same environments.
61 of 91
evaulation 1? correlational
Correlational: cannot establish an individual’s genotype determines their IQ.
62 of 91
evaulation 2? usefullness
Usefulness: twin/ family studies cannot determine what genes or interaction between genes determines intelligence. However, it suggests offspring of low IQ parents are more at risk, and early environmental stimulation/ advantages for these individual
63 of 91
evaulation 3? construct validty
Low construct validity: Raven’s may be too narrow a measure of intelligence, ignoring fluid or other modalities of intelligence which may be influenced differently by genes.
64 of 91
evaulation 4? low internal validty
a higher concordance rate in monozygotic than dizygotic twins may not indicate a genetic basis of intelligence as monozygotic share more environmental factors and are more likely to be treated in similar ways by parents than dizygotic who look differ
65 of 91
evaulation 4 extra?
may be different genders, and may have different personalities which means parents interact with them differently
66 of 91
evaulation 5 hollisum?
The study conducted a multi-factorial analysis investigating shared familial environments and the influence of hereditary genotypes on intelligence.
67 of 91
evaulation 6? high internal reliablity
The measure of intelligence used, the Ravens had high test-re-test correlations. This means the results are likely to be replicable on other populations, increasing the generalisability of the conclusions.
68 of 91
evaulation 7, uncontrolled variables?
Boredom or fatigue may have confounded results on the Ravens as testing took approximately 5hrs. This reduces the internal validity of the conclusions on factors influencing intelligence
69 of 91
evaulation 8, ethnocentrisum?
a sample from the Netherlands was used- cultural factors may interact with genes to affect how brain develops, meaning the results may not be generalizable to determine the extent genes alone
70 of 91
evaulation 8, ethnocentrisum? extra
and gene-environment interaction account for variance in intelligence.
71 of 91
evaulation 9, high internal validty?
Twins were all born in the same year/s (1995/6) so cohort effects were controlled for (how generation you’re born into may influence intelligence) and can’t explain variance in intelligence.
72 of 91
evaulation 10, High internal validity?
The test was non-verbal so scores were not biased towards children who had been formally educated or were more fluent in English.
73 of 91
evaulation 11, ethics?
informed consent was obtained from parents and children. Being labelled with a low IQ may have had negative effects on children, i.e. self-fulfilling prophesy.
74 of 91
application?
Intelligence testing- Raven’s progressive matrices (used in the key research)
75 of 91
Psychometric test?
standardised, quantitative measure of a trait.
76 of 91
Design?
Questions are arranged in matrices (grids) and participants must identify the rules or patterns in the grid which determine the missing piece.
77 of 91
design 2?
The grids vary in difficulty by adjusting the amount of information participants have to consider, i.e. grids were 6 x 6, 4 x 3, 3 x 3, or 2 x 2
78 of 91
design 3?
It is a non-verbal test so grids contain pictorial information. It is called a progressive test as questions get progressively harder in a set.
79 of 91
design 4?
Statistical models like Rasch are used to weight the questions, so harder questions are assigned more points than easy, rather than just calculating total number of questions correct which wouldn’t control for difficulty
80 of 91
There are 3 versions of the test? 1
Colour (CPM): contains 36 items (3 sets of 12) mainly printed in colour to make the patterns easier to identify. Useful for 4-7 year olds, the elderly, people with mental or physical disabilities.
81 of 91
There are 3 versions of the test? 2
Standard (SPM): contains 60 items (5 sets of 12) mainly printed in black and white. Useful for children aged 7-18 years.
82 of 91
There are 3 versions of the test? 3
Advanced (APM): contains 48 items (1 practice set of 12, and a set of 36) printed in black and white. Useful for adults aged 18
83 of 91
design 5?
They measure GF (fluid) intelligence; this measures cognitive abilities such as making inferences based on information provided and ignores crystallised intelligence, and other modalities of intelligence proposed by Gardner such as Musical.
84 of 91
Advantages?
As it’s non-verbal, it can be applied cross-culturally, and to people with communication difficulties like those with ASD, and partially controls for the influence of formal education on intelligence.
85 of 91
second advantge?
As the test has been adapted for different ages and disorders, but scores intelligence in the same way, it allows the intelligence of these groups to be compared.
86 of 91
disadvantages?
Raven’s progressive matrices may not measure what they intended to measure, i.e. the ‘g’ factor which remains stable across time, meaning it lacks internal validity.
87 of 91
Wongupparaj et al. (2015)?
looked at 64 years of scores on Raven's Progressive Matrices tests for 202,468 participants in 48 countries. They found the Flynn effect: average IQ scores were increasing in each generation.
88 of 91
Wongupparaj et al. (2015)? 2
Flynn found it was not improvements in how much we’re learning, so suggested an increase in problem-solving abilities was the cause
89 of 91
Wongupparaj et al. (2015)? 3
This could be explained by people in successive generations since the 50s being expected to problem-solve more as part of their careers, education, or in leisure time (i.e. brain training).
90 of 91
Wongupparaj et al. (2015)? 4
Intelligence may therefore be more dependent upon environmental factors, even in later childhood and adulthood, than genetics.
91 of 91

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

examples of the factor that predicted cognative testes?

Back

i.e. if you did well on one of the cognitive tests, you tended to do well on all the other

Card 3

Front

what is the G factor?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

what did these cognative testes show?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

what does this suggest?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all child resources »