Lecture 4: Can we boost our psychological capital?

Question 1

Is intelligence considered to be fixed?

Answer 1

1. Intelligence, and especially fluid measures (gf) originally assumed to be largely ‘innate’ or biologically determined (Cattell, 1943)
2. True to a moderate extent: 40% of variance in gc and 51% in gf explained by variation in genetic factors (Bouchard, 2004; Davies et al., 2011)
3. So still lots of scope for environmental influences

Question 2

What was the purpose of the Perrp Preschool Program (PPP)? What problem was it trying to address?

Answer 2

> Can we identify children in ‘bad’ environments and improve their situation?
intervention program focused on cognitive ability with random assignment and long-term evaluation
Low IQ Children much more likely to perform poorly at school, drop out, become involved in crime, delinquency etc

Question 3

What was the strategy of PPP? What was the program?

Answer 3

‘High risk’ children aged 3-4 identified (IQ<85, poverty/low SES) and over two years given .5 hour daily sessions, 1.5 hour weekly home visits.
Curriculum:
1) Emphasis on active participatory learning
2) High focus on planning and executing daily tasks (plan-do-review)
3) Decision making and problem solving
4) Carried out and reviewed by the children with their peers (with support from the teacher)

Question 4

What were the results of PPP?

Answer 4

> No lasting improvements in intelligence
several improvements in adult outcomes: (Almlund et al., 2011; Heckman et al., 2010)
1) Educational attainment:
a) 40% more likely to complete high school
b) More time in mainstream education and less in remedial education
2) Occupational Success:
a) 42% higher median income
b) 26% reduction in reliance on social welfare
3) Health:
a) Approx 50% less drug use
4) Prosocial Behaviour:
a) 46% less likely to have spent time in prison
b) 33% less likely to be arrested for violent crime

Question 5

What other programs are similar to PPP? What are the results?

Answer 5

Headstart (age <3, 22 million children) - no lasting impact on intelligence but positive impact on school performance and adult outcomes

Question 6

What have reviews of early intervention programs found?

Answer 6

> Review by Carroll (1993): early intervention strategies have positive effects but do not boost intelligence in the long term
Very recent meta-analytic review of dozens of early childhood interventions (Protzko et al., 2013) reported some small, short-term positive effects (2-7 IQ points) for various intervention programs including (iron supplements, interactive reading etc.)

Question 7

What did research by Jaeggi and colleagues (2008) find?

Answer 7

> cognitive training can improve [fluid intelligence]
Measures of working memory are almost perfectly correlated with measures of gf (Baddeley, 2007; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)

Question 8

What was the task developed by Jaeggi et al (2008)?

Answer 8

> dual ‘n-back task for training working memory
So the individual is having to hold a lot of information in mind. First, the location of the square – Vis Spac Sketch. Second, the aurally presented letter – Phono Loop

Question 9

What were the results of Jaeggi et al (2008)?

Answer 9

> Improvements of the task appeared ‘dose dependent’
Significant increase for training group on pre/post tests of gf
Much smaller increase for ‘no contact’ controls (retest effect)

Question 10

What are criticism of Jaeggi et al (2008) by Reddick et al 2012?

Answer 10

> 4 different data-sets (with small n) collapsed together for overall findings (where only 2/4 sub-studies found effects of WM training on gf )
Effects found for one measure of gf, but no effects found on a different measure of gf
Use of “no-contact” control groups - Placebo (or ‘Hawthorn’) Effects – changes in behaviour often result from mere observation or inclusion in a study.
– WM training group may improve due to subtle changes in effort, motivation, interest, beliefs etc
– No-contact control group is acutely aware that they are not expected to improve

Question 11

How did Reddick et al 2012 comprehensively re-evaluate the effects of training on WM?

Answer 11

> large n, no collapsing
17 different measures of g
Active control group visual search training
3 testing times

Question 12

What were the results of Reddick et al 2012?

Answer 12

> all subjects showed dose-dependent practice effects (people got better on WM and VS task)
neither group showed any improvements on any of the 17 tests of intelligence
matches findings of another study which used an active and no-contact control groups (Seidler et al., 2010)

Question 13

What did Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013 find in their meta-analysis of twenty-three studies re WM trainging?

Answer 13

> Short term improvements in working memory which lasted about 5-9 months
Some small improvements on other abilities when assessed immediately after training
Zero improvement in any cognitive abilities at follow up.
“there is no evidence these programs are suitable as … ways of effecting general improvements in adults’ or children’s cognitive skills or scholastic attainments.”

Question 14

What explains short-term influences on g? (in early intervention programs)

Answer 14

> Placebo effects that potentially explain results by Jaeggi?
The placebo effect may be subtle changes in beliefs & motivations may impact (for better or worse) on test-taking performance (but not long term intelligence)

Question 15

What beliefs about intelligence can impact test taking performance?

Answer 15

1. Stereotype Threat (Aronson & McGlone, 2009; Walton & Spencer, 2009)
2. Implicit “Theory of Intelligence” (Aronson et al., 2002; Dweck, 1999; Dweck & Leggertt, 1998)
   These can impact test taking performance rather than actual intelligence.

Question 16

What is stereotype threat?

Answer 16

a) When test-takers are aware of common stereotypes that relate to the achievement context, they do poorly e.g., ‘girls can’t do maths’
b) Subtle manipulations that downplay or discredit these stereotypes result in improved performance
c) Improved IQ test scores for
i) Minority groups (g, verbal)
ii) Women (maths)
iii) The elderly (memory)
iv) Low income students (verbal)

Question 17

What is the Implicit “Theory of Intelligence”? Dweck et al 1999, 1998

Answer 17

a) People differ in whether they believe intelligence is fixed (entity theorists) or malleable (incremental theorists)
b) Entity theorists give up or withdraw effort from challenging tasks
c) Incremental theorists work harder to overcome difficulties

Question 18

What studies have looked at Implicit “Theory of Intelligence”?

Answer 18

Study 1: Correlational - measured maths achievement, theory of intelligence, and various motivational variables
Results:
> kids who believe intelligence is malleable also tend to be motivated to learn more, to believe that effort pays off, to endorse fewer helpless attributions and to have a positive constructive approach to learning.
> Incremental theorists improved over the 2 years in their maths grades, entity theorists did not
Study 2: Teaching intervention study - School Students taught that intelligence is malleable (e.g. neuroplastic changes) vs. fixed (random assignment)
Results:
> Incremental group developed incremental theory of intelligence, plus changes in motivation variables
> maths grades usually slip during the transition to adolescence (from grade 7-8), and that this appears to be reversed in the incremental group

Question 19

How are motivation and intelligence related?

Answer 19

> People differ on their approach to achievement motivation orientation - performance orientation (a bad mark means I am not good at this) vs. mastery orientation (bad mark is feedback, opportunity to improve)
Incentives can boost IQ test scores - Almlund et al., 2011
—> Scores on g can be increased to 1SD in children my providing incentives (money or lollies) - eg Holt & Hobbs (1979) 80 delinquent adolescents who were given a (1) chance to win tokens for correct responses produced scores 1 SD higher than those who (2) were given tokens (lose for incorrect response) and (3) given feedback.
Test anxiety can impact scores (Hembree, 1998)

Question 20

What is test anxiety?

Answer 20

> Anxiety (both in general, and specific to the testing situation), related to lower test scores
With repeated testing the impact of anxiety gradually disappears
Generally explained in terms of
i) Interference/resources: anxious thoughts prevent full focus on test content
ii) Motivational avoidance: desire to ‘escape’ impairs full engagement with test content

Question 21

Study on motivational avoidance?

Answer 21

Elliot and colleagues:
> Even subtle aversive cues can induce an avoidance response in a test condition
> Negative effect of a simple coversheet on cognitive tests (analogical reasoning, vocabulary)
> RED is an aversive colour in an achievement context
Results:
> Red coversheet got less items correct on IQ test (numeric and verbal)
> Red is avoidance because they answers more easy questions
> Fewer knocks made after being exposed to red cover sheet (persevere less)
> Red screen - more backward movement of chair (behavioural avoidance)

Question 22

What is Flynn Effect?

Answer 22

> Each new edition of a major IQ test is normed with a mean of 100 and St. Dev of 15
People always got higher score on the older version of the test - the test needs to get harder harder to stay at a mean of 100

Question 23

What are explanations of Flynn Effect?

Answer 23

> Improved education? Gottfredson, 1997; Flynn, 1999; Wai & Putallaz, 2011 - But Flynn Effect is specific to fluid intelligence and education mainly influences crystallised intelligence
Improved standard of living (incl. nutrition) for low SES? But IQ gains appear to occur at about the same rate for the top and bottom 5% of test scorers
Modernization
- Rapid changes in technology over the last century
- Children have early experience with complex technologies
But the short answer is ‘we don’t know’ - therefore we can’t explain everything about intelligence

Question 24

The Perry Preschool Program - What explains the improved long-term outcomes (achievement, health, crime)?

Answer 24

Personality? (Almlund et al., 2011; Heckman et al., 2010)

i. Significant increases in teacher-rated indicators of conscientiousness (e.g., harder working, less truancies) (although there weren’t personality assessments done in PPP)
ii. Significant decreases in ‘internalising behaviour’, related to neuroticism (related to anxiety etc.)

Question 25

What other evidence is there that personality may be involved in the positive outcomes of early intervention programs?

Answer 25

Project STAR (Almlund et al., 2011) - i. Random assignment of children to different kindergarten class SIZES
Outcomes for children assigned to small (vs. large) classes:
1) Higher g at the end of kindergarten; no difference by grade 8
2) Sustained improvements in behavior: teacher-assessed EFFORT, INITIATIVE interest in the class, and disruptive behavior
3) Improved adult outcomes (e.g., income, occupational achievement)

Question 26

Which program explicitly attempted to promote personality change?

Answer 26

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS): Bierman et al. (2010)
> Program for primary school children focussed on self-control, emotional awareness, and social problem-solving skills
Outcomes:
1) Higher educational achievement
2) Decreased aggression, increased prosocial behaviour, increased engagement/interest in class

Question 27

What are some attempts to change personality in adults?

Answer 27

Rare
> Knutson et al., 1998:
1) 4 week pharmacology intervention
2) Serotonergic boosters (used to treat anxiety) result in decreased neuroticism - didn’t look at long term changes
> Jackson et al. 2010:
1) 16 week ‘Openness to experience program’ older adults (aged 60-94)
2) Inductive reasoning training plus puzzle solving
3) o.4 SD increase in trait Openness, relative to controls

Question 28

Does counter-dispositional behaviour work?

Answer 28

Going against your ‘instincts’
> Personal project - work on your C or E
> Enacted Extraversion
i. Random assignment of participants to ‘acting extraverted’ vs ‘acting introverted’ conditions
ii. Increased short-term positive affect scores after acting extraverted (Fleeson et al., 2002)
> Behaviour activation therapy for depression
i. Therapeutic intervention to promote goal-directed behaviour and engagement in meaningful pursuits (acting extroverted)
ii. Improved positive affect
iii. Reduced depression symptoms (Cullen et al., 2006)

Question 29

Individual differences are ubiquitous and have important real-world consequences. How can we improve outcomes for everyone?

Answer 29

> Personal change? e.g., Enhancing conscientiousness, via education/schooling, personal-development, “personal projects” etc?
Environmental/societal change? e.g., Intelligence: differences exist and seem hard to diminish
Gottfredson (1997): Should we strive for a more cognitively accessible world? e.g. Health literacy shouldn’t be an issue
Attempts at inclusiveness wrongly labelled as ‘dumbing down’?
The least cognitively able person should be able to buy a train ticket, file a tax return, chose healthy foods etc