Intelligence Flashcards
Midterm 2
intelligence testing: binet background
- higher mental processes -> memory, prob solving, language, judgements
- idea of mental age
- schools found that some students were struggling
○ How they were identifying struggling students: purely based on teachers identifying which students were struggling
intelligence testing: early def mental age
○ What age in these questions are you performing at?
§ Ex: if you’re 5 year old but answering questions like how they’d expect a 7 year old to answer, they’d give you a mental age of 7
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test
At each age of the test, the average is 100
- If you’re performing at the average age you actually are, you’d have a store of 100
Mental quotient and original intelligence quotient are now outdated bc what a “mental age” is is tricky
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test: past and present scoring
past: intelligence quotient
- provided 1 general score
now: scores now given based on deviation - where a child scores relative to the average at their age
- We have lots of standardization of how other people your age are performing
- IQ is normed to your age
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) ( + preschool version)
provides general score plus 5 composite scores
- Developed with a children and adult version
○ Thought that Stanford-Binet test relied too much on words
○ Thought that tests should have non-verbal components
intelligence testing: idea of deviation
- The exact, raw score isn’t actually used
- What’s used is how much you deviate from the average of your age
reliability (consistency)
If you give the same test later, it should be consistent over time
- split-half reliability
- test-retest reliability
split-half reliability
If you look at a score at the first half vs. the second half of an IQ test, you should have similar scores throughout the test
test-retest reliability
○ You get similar scores at two different testing points
○ The further apart in time, the less reliable it is
§ IQ is decent at being reliable even decades later
validity
it’s measuring what we think of as intelligence
- content & construct validity
- predictive validity
content & construct validity
○ Do the questions within the test actually get at intelligence?
○ Does the construction of the test actually get at intelligence?
○ Bring in experts: do you think these questions measure intelligence?
predictive validity
○ It should also predict things that we think are linked with intelligence
§ Academic success
§ Life success
○ What IQ is good at predicting:
§ Military training success
§ High complexity job performance
§ Civilian training success
content-validity bias
○ Is the content of the test equally valid or is there bias?
○ If a question is more likely to have gotten right by a certain group of people, they’ll tweak the test
predictive validity bias
○ Is it equally predictive of outcome in different groups? If I give everyone an IQ test, does it validly predict outcome across different groups?
psychometric appraoch
idea that we can have a construct/idea of intelligence, and that is something measurable and assessable through testing
- We can operationalize intelligence through testing
general intelligence: what it’s comprised of
- crystallized intelligence
- fluid intelligence
- BOTH correlate and contribute to the one, “overall” intelligence
defining intelligence: general intelligence (g)
general intelligence as multiple abilities/properties
- G factor: the overall score you receive from the IQ test
- While you can differentiate between sub-abilities, they’ll all correlate and connect into one overall intelligence
crystallized intelligence
factual knowledge
- What you can learn through schooling/learning
○ Do you know who George Washington is?
- Increases with age
fluid intelligence
intelligence on the spot
- If I give you a list of words, how quickly can you memorize them?
- Decreases in older age
Sternberg’s Model of intelligence
3 parts:
- Analytical
○ What’s measured by typical IQ test
- Creative
○ Thinking of things in new ways, new answers
- Practical
○ Street smarts
○ How quickly are you able to adapt, to go out and be successful in the real world?
Gardner’s Model of Intelligence
~8 types of intelligence that are all distinct from each other
○ Interpersonal
○ Visual-linguistic
○ Logic-mathematical
○ Naturalistic
○ Intrapersonal
○ Visual-spatial
○ Musica
○ Bodily-kinesthetic
- Very influential in schooling
○ When looking at different abilities (eg musical, visual-spatial, etc.), it’s been found that they still correlate to general intellegence
factors related to differences in IQ tests
- genetics
- gene-environment correlations
- environment
genetics (related to IQ differences)
- many look at twin studies
- Monozygotic twins who were raised apart, they’re still quite likely to have similar IQ stores
- Strong evidence that genetics play a role in intelligence
- If you share genetics with somebody, you’re more likely to have similar IQs as them
gene-environment correlations (related to IQ differences)
- If we have a genetic tendency towards wanting intelligence, our environments often warrant that
types of gene-environment correlations
- passive effects
- evocative effects
- active effects
passive effects (gene-environment correlation)
- If you’re living in a home w/ genetically related parents, you share with genes with them
- If you have a genetic tendency towards high IQ, your parents have that too
○ Your parents may select environments that reinforce or correlate with that
§ Ex: fill a house with lots of books
evocative effects (gene-environment correlation)
- A child may have a genetic tendency towards a high IQ and their nature evokes an environment that fosters that
- They may evoke certain responses in their environment, thus evoking more learning
○ Ex: a child with a high IQ genetic disposition may ask lots of questions and thus receive information
active effects (gene-environment correlation)
- Child’s genes lead them to select various environments
- When a child with a genetic disposition for a high IQ is given a choice to pick a book, they’ll pick the longer one
aptitude
innate ability
- Can we use a standardized measurement to identify who will succeed regardless of bias (i.e. what school you go to, where you’re from, etc.)
“these tests measure what they test”
- If they measure IQ is a deeper question
- If they measure intelligence is a deeper question and dependent on what we consider intellegence
IQ: identical twin similarity
similarity in IQ increases with age
- Might be more likely to select similar things
- Might reinforce their IQs getting more similar with age
IQ: fraternal twins similarity
similarity in IQ decreases with age
- Thought to do with selecting your environment
- Might be predisposed to choosing different environments
- The choices they make lead to more and more differences over time
IQ: environmental effects
- schooling
- family/home environment
- SES status
- time period
schooling (IQ - environmental)
really does matter for IQ
- Those who are in school more do better on IQ tests
Looking @ kids who are the same age, but in different grades
@ the cutoff: in grade 6, born on Dec 31st VS. kids in grade 5, but born on Jan 1, Jan 2
- The time you’re in school makes a big difference in IQ scores
Family and home environment (IQ - environmental)
Parents who are more involved, more stimulating home environment, emotionally and physically responsive
SES (IQ - environmental)
- High quality daycare and schooling
- Access to nutritious food
- Access to good medical care
Time period (IQ - environmental)
IQ seems to be going up with time
IQ testing today: aspects
- administered and scored by trained professionals
- very strict guidelines
- most tests are continuously renormed
trained professionals (IQ testing today)
you need a lot of training and classes to be able to give an IQ test
○ Sometimes grad courses in clinical psych, educational psych, etc. train people to give this test
○ These tests aren’t given as MC, often very response based
- Verbal responses are coded
expenses (IQ testing today)
$800 for the box, more for the box, etc.
continual edits (IQ testing today)
- Needs to be normed for the right population for the population being tested (ie a diverse canadian-based sample)
- Need to constantly be evaluated and standardized to re-determine what an IQ of 100 measn
Where IQ tests are being used today
schools to qualify for:
- learning disability diagnosis and access to supports
- access to special education classes
- access to giftedness programs and supports
Court cases (death penalty)
IQ in death penalty
- You can’t execute people who were determined to be mentally incapable
- Some states: they would administer IQ test and if they scored above a certain score, they would be eligible to be executed
○ Overturned in 2014
Things correlated w IQ
- Job performance
- Attitudes
- Health
- Morality
Study: folks with higher IQ were less likely to have died at the ages studied
IQ: lead research
Back in 1900s, when paint used to contain lead, and it would flake off the walls
- The paint chips would taste good because lead is sweet
- Old belief: only large amounts of lead exposure are toxic
- Researchers found: even small amounts of lead is associated with a drop in IQ
○ If you ingest a small amount of led, it was correlated with a drop in IQ
- This use of IQ was very important in policies
changes in IQ have been used to study the impacts of
- Poverty
- Exposure to violence
- Pollution
- Breaks from school
○ Used with COVID
using IQ: group level changes
Observing group level changes as a tool for research
What factors seem to be correlated with cognitive performance/mental abilities
IQ: measuring intellegence?
IQ tests may not actually measure “intelligence”
- Do they get at test anxiety, reading ability, mood, etc.?
Your score on an IQ test is influence by lots of things other than mental abilities
What IQ scores are sensitive to
- Test performance is sensitive to motivation ($$ incentive
- Coaching
○ How much money they say they’re gonna pay you
§ People do better with incentives and HIGHER incentives - Bias is testing
○ People who don’t have the same positionally as the writers are at a disadvantage
○ Cultural differences in knowledge (even sitting down and taking a test)
problem w/ IQ: evidence of mental ability?
The problem is we tend to interpret IQ scores as evidence of a person’s underlying mental ability, not evidence of their cultural knowledge, motivation, coaching, stress that day, hunger, etc.
History of IQ: eugenics
- idea that traits are passed down through genetics; thus, control over who can breed occurs
- used tests to sort individuals
- used for policies on forced sterilization, restrictions on marriage, etc.
sorting individuals (history of IQ)
- Early use: US military used to determine what rank/where to sort people
○ Who will be a good officer, who should be on the front lines, etc.
○ When they noticed group, racial differences, they used it to stratify across individuals as well
§ Esp across racial groups
○ Started to create racial hierarchies
§ These are the “good” races
□ Used as a tool to stratify races
forced sterilization (history of IQ)
- Eliminating people’s abilities to procreate
- Restrictions on marriage
- Policies were also used in Canada; used as a tool to identify who should/could have kids
○ They would sterilize you if you didn’t have a high enough IQ
Primarily low SES students/individuals
Leilani Muir (history of IQ)
- Scored low in IQ
- The Albertan government deemed her unfit; didn’t want her to pass on her low genes
- They told her they were going to take out her appendix but actually took out her Falopian tubes
- She didn’t know until she was an adult and was trying to have children
group differences in IQ scores
- gender
- race
- have been interpreted in terms of “genetic advantage” for higher-scoring groups
gender (group differences in IQ)
particularly differences in spatial abilities (sub scores of IQ)
- Mental rotation tasks
- Boys/men do better on mental rotation tasks
○ BUT: This gender different doesn’t seem to show up until 6/7
○ Maybe it’s due to socialization
race (differences in IQ)
more dominant racial groups score higher vs. more marginalized racial groups score lower
- On average, white individuals are scoring higher on IQ tests (~10 point average difference)
- Has been interpreted as a genetic advantage
- Race: socially constructed variable; we, as a society, have decided that certain traits accompany certain people
- Does not map onto genetic differences
why IQ does not indicate innate racial differences
- differences in enrichment
- stereotype threat
differences in enrichment (IQ vs innate race)
○ Social class differences, different access to resources, etc.
○ Towns have different policies based on where they place different racial groups
§ Less access to healthcare, nutritious food, etc.
○ Black and POC families are often lower income
§ When income is controlled for, we still see social group differences
stereotype threat
Awareness of the stereotype reduces our cognitive resources
- Reduces capability to perform
we belong to social group associated w/ stereotypes related to intelligence –> our awareness of these stereotypes can impact our thoughts and performance
stereotype threat: flow chart
awareness of negative beliefs about own group
–>
- stress response
- negative thoughts lead to self regulation
- monitoring of performance
–>
impaired performance
stress (stereotype threat element)
prevents us from performing our best
more negative emotions to self regulation (stereotype threat element)
- Having to regulate/spend time managing emotions as the same time you’re supposed to be doing these tests
- Additional cognitive load
monitoring your performance (stereotype threat element)
When we’re exposed to stereotype threat, we spend more time thinking about if we’re going to live up to the stereotype
testing stereotype threat: Asian American girls on a math test
- Conflicting stereotypes they experience
○ Asian stereotype: better at math
○ Girl stereotype: worse at math
AA girls on math test: conditions
- Primed on Asian identity
○ Who are the other Asian friends you play with?
○ Gave coloring book with Asian images - Primed girl identity
○ Who are the other girl friends you play with?
AA girls on math test: findings
When primed with their Asian identity: do better on the test
When primed with their girl identity: do worse on the test
Leads us to perform better or worse based on how we’re primed
- Confound: upper elementary school
○ Girls feel a lot of pride in their gender; “girls rule boys drool”
○ When you prime it at that age, there may be an advantage there
testing stereotype threat: math performance among Ugandan Adolescence
- extending research on stereotype threat beyond WEIRD populations
- examine how expectations of others holding stereotypes and own endorsement of gender stereotypes contribute to stereotype threat
ugandan adolescence math tests: test question
Testing: if your belief of a stereotype or your awareness that other people believe in a stereotype affects your performance
- If other people endorse or believe in a stereotype
- If you believe those stereotypes
ugandan adolescence math tests: conditions
control: “this test is not diagnostic of any particular abilities”
stereotype threat: “this test has consistently shown there to be differences between boys and girls”
- priming them w/ the idea that their gender matters
ugandan adolescence math tests: general findings
- stereotype threat present only when participants expected that the test-giver had gendered expectations
- may mean awareness of stereotypes affect our performance
If you’re not aware of the stereotypes that other people may hold, you may be kept safe from stereotype
This is how stereotype threat might be more apparent
ugandan adolescence math tests: condition specific results
When they belief that the experimenter believes boys will do better, they seem to perform according to that
- When they believe the other person has a stereotype that they will perform worse
VS
When they believe that the experimenter expects that girls will do better, girls do better
- When they believe the other person has a stereotype that they will perform better
intelligence mindsets: types
entity theory: fixed mindset - intelligence and talent are fixed at birth
incremental theory: growth mindset - intelligence and talent can go up and down
- intelligence can change; through effort, work, and experiences, intelligence isn’t something that’s inherent; it can shift with experiences
intelligence mindsets: what they predict
- predicts response to challenges, failure
- associated w/ academic outcomes
- growth mindset taught through intervention –> linked w better academic performance
improvements to the IQ test
- efforts to counteract stereotype threat
- dynamic assessment
- shift how we think about IQ
dynamic assessment (improving IQ)
Dynamic assessment –> goal is to examine learning potential, test how much a child can learn with assistance
○ If you’re working with assistance, how far can you get?
shifting how we think about IQ (improving IQ)
- Rather than underlying mental ability, can we shift how we interpret these scores differently
- Encourage growth mindset
§ Incremental: intelligence is something that’s mailable; something that can shift and change over time; can be shifted by effort, learning, encouragement
mindset on academic outcomes
○ We can teach growth mindsets through interventions
○ After growth mindset intervention: performance improves
○ Now: programs that schools can buy and implement to introduce growth mindset
China study: who growth mindsets are beneficial for
In China: may be more common to consider intelligence as something that’s innate
- Intelligence isn’t taught in school; it something that’s more fluid and more creative
Maybe: different associations between learning
- In China: intelligence isn’t what shapes your success, but rather how hard you work
US vs China (intelligence type)
- More tendency for fixed mindsets in China
In US: More of a growth mindset, the better the math scores
In China: no relationship - Whether you have a fixed or growth mindset, doesn’t seem to correlated or predict grades
- how you think about intelligence doesn’t predict academic performance
who growth mindsets are beneficial for
- differences across cultures
- more impact for low-achieving students
- when teachers and peers are also supportive of growth mindset beliefs
- when context allows for growth!
students & teachers: growth mindset
- Students that are already doing well: growth mindset is less beneficial/effective
- Teachers: if they don’t have a growth mindset, it’s not or much less helpful if a student has one
