Mental Abilities Flashcards
What is intelligence?
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Mental abilities
The capacity to perform the higher mental processes of reasoning, remembering, understanding and problem solving
Why study mental abilities and intelligence?
Helps us understand ourselves
It can help us select people (school, job)
help us understand cognitive impairments after brain injury or in developmental disorders
help us understand the role of the environment and educational interventions in improving mental abilities
how to measure what you can’t see
indirectly assess these things otherwise we make claims that are not accurate which can have detrimental effects on people
Construct
Theoretical (hypothetical) entity built by researchers
In cannot be directly observed
Tool to help up make sense of observable behaviour
Observable behaviour (manifest variables)
The thing that you can quantify, see and directly measure (e.g. how quickly you solve a task, how many times you smile per day, how many solutions you come up with etc.)
Represent some underlying disposition
Latent variables
You can’t see, interpreted through behaviours.
The number of times you smile (behaviour) may infer a certain level of happiness (latent)
Test
A way of operationalising this construct, turning it into something concrete
Reaction time reflects “processing speed” or gives an indication.
Number of items remembered reflects “working memory capacity”
Entity theorist
Believe mental abilities are fixed
Incremental theorist
Believe abilities are changeable - led to more effort and a more positive response to failure.
The Importance of Implicit beliefs
(incremental theory) predicted an upwards trajectory in grades over the two years of high school, while (entity theory) predicted a flat trajectory.
verbal intelligence
good vocabulary, converses easily on lots of subjects
Problem solving
makes good decisions, poses problem in a optimal way, plans ahead
Practical intelligence
sizes up situation well, determines how to achieve goals, displays an interest in the world at large
Explicit Theories of Intelligence
use data collected from people performing tasks that require intelligent cognition. To test whether or not the hypotheses (implicit) are correct.
Binet’s scale
Age level assigned to each reasoning tasked
The youngest age at which a child of normal intelligence should be able to complete the task. determined by the age at which a majority of normal children in the standardisation sample passed the task
Mental age
age assigned to the most difficult task that you could complete (E.g. if you were 5 years old and you were able to solve tasks appropriate for 7 but not above you had a mental age of 7)
Alfred Binet
commissioned to develop techniques for identifying children whose lack of success in normal classrooms suggested the need for some form of special education
Binet’s goal
devised only to identify students in need of remedial education (i.e., to help and improve)
He believe that intelligence can be augmented by good education; it is not a fixed and inborn quantity
Binet’s stipulations
- The scored are a practical device
- The scale is rough - not used for ranking “normal” kids
- Low scores shall not be used to mark children as innately incapable
H.H Goddard
Goddard used Binet’s test to prevent immigration and propagation of “morons”
Scores for Goddards test
Idiot: mental age <2
Imbecile: mental age 3-7
Feeble Minded: mental age 8-12
Moron: highest functioning mentally retarded
Goddard’s reasoning
His reason for this was to avoid the dilution of the American stock?
Part of eugenics
Intelligence quotient (IQ)
Introduced in the Stanford-Binet test
Problematic
Ratio IQ
mental age divided by chronological age multiplied by 100
Allows comparison of intellectual performance across age levels
difficult to apply to adults - assumes linear increase
Z score
Standard Deviation of 1, mean of 0
standardising (norming) a test
Raw scores > Z-scores > Deviation IQ scores
Deviation IQ
scores means the same thing regardless of the comparison group
scores <100 and >100, reflect how far your score deviates from the average
Stanford-Binet (IV edition)
15 subtests in four areas of cognitive ability
Give standard age scores (SAS), mean = 100, SD = 16
verbal, quantitative, abstract/visual reasoning and short-term memory
Raw score
Number of correctly answered items: say there were 20 items and you failed 5 you would then have a score of 15.
This score is later converted to a scaled score
Establish a basal and ceiling level for each task
Usually start at a point suggested by examinee’s age
Basal level = four items passed in a row
Ceiling level = three or more out of four consecutive items failed (discontinue)
Raven’s Progressive Matrices
Prototypical test of fluid intelligence (non-verbal) (Gf)
Deduce the “rule” and fill in the missing blank (pattern)
correlation
linear relationship between two variables
-1<x<1.
does not equal causation
+ correlation
as scores one one variable increase, scores on the other variable also tend to increase
- correlation
Negative: as scores on one variable increase, scores on the other variable tend to decrease
Factor analysis of intelligence
find underlying factors that explain the pattern of correlations within scores
all mental abilities correlate with each other to some extent - multiple clusters of stronger correlations
Organises Primary Mental Abilities (PMAs) into more general cognitive abilities
Spearman’s g
general intelligence factors - good predictor of performance in real life
Positive manifold
they all correlate (positive) with each other to some extent
primary mental abilities
Verbal comprehension
Inductive reasoning
Numerical fluency
Word fluency
Spatial ability
Memory
Perceptual speed
General fluid intelligence (Gf)
The ability to grasp relations between things; deal with novelty
Non-verbal abilities, inductive and deductive reasoning
Culture free (in theory, but not in practice - assessment?)
General crystallised intelligence (Gc)
Acquired knowledge and skills
Requires exposure to culture, formal/informal education
May require some investment in fluid intelligence
Gf first order abilities
Induction
sequential reasoning
quantitative reasoning
temporal tracking
figural reasoning
Gc first order abilities
verbal comprehension
cognition of semantic relations
general information
reading comprehension
spelling ability
verbal closure
phonetic coding
foreign language aptitude
Evidence that Gf and Gc are different constructs
Fluid rises to young adulthood, then falls off in old age
Crystallised rises and plateaus, roughly speaking
Good psychological assessment depends on…
How well we can measure the ability or trait of interest
Is our test accurate? - reliability
Is our test measuring what we think it’s measuring? -validity
Whether the answer is used in an appropriate way (is our use of the test valid?) - Validity
reliability
If a test is reliable it should be able to distinguish between people who differ on the construct - not influence by random fluctuations
Classical test theory
Any observed score has two components:
The true score (the real level of ability)
And some error component (random variance)
X = T + E
sources of error
Test Construction (e.g., choice of items/stimuli; content of the test)
Test Administration (e.g., variability in examiner; variability in examinee, examiner mood)
Errors in Scoring (e.g., failure to use ‘rubric’ consistently)
Interpretation Subjectivity (e.g., evaluation of response)
observed score
The actual “measuremnt”
Consists of True score and Error
True score
the ideal measurement
What we strive for
Is constant for an individual
Error
Errors in measurement
Is random
Noise
Unrelated to the true score (i.e., the “real” score)
Cannot be eliminated completely
Estimating the True Score
estimate it from taking multiple measurements
If we could repeat the measure my indefinitely the long term mean = the true score (doesn’t actually work because individuals would get better at the test and obscure the result)
How do we estimate reliability?
Test-retest reliability
Equivalent forms of reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha (𝜶)
reflects the extent to which all items measure the same thing.
If 𝜶 is high (close to 1) there is a strong positive correlation which means you are measuring the same things in both sections of the test.
Content validity
Coverage of the “Domain” of behaviour
Define the boundaries and structure of Domain
boundary and structure
Boundary: what is considered part of the domain and what’s not
Structure : test contents reflect the structure of the domain.
construct validity
How well defined is the construct measured by this test?
convergent: Is the construct related to other theoretically similar constructs/tests
discriminant: Is the construct independent of other, unrelated, psychological constructs?
How do we measure intelligence?
Step 1: Work out what it is we want to measure
Step 2: Work out what it looks like
Step 3: Devise tests and scores
Step 4: Work out how it is structured
Step 5: Assess whether our test is valid and reliable
Sir Francis Galton
Prominent people have prominent relatives
The offspring of these families have better access to jobs and education
(nepotism)
Opposed to them being actually gifted.
Eugenics
Family Resemblance Studies
if a trait is affected by genetic factors, individuals that are more similar genetically
should be more similar with respect to that trait
problems with family resemblance studies
Genetic relatedness is usually closely linked to environmental similarity
doesn’t seperate hereditary from environment
Adoption and Twin Studies
Genetically similar people raised in different environments - Similarity can be (more likely) attributed to genetic factors
Genetically unrelated people raised in the same environment - Similarity can be attributed to shared environment
shared environment
socio-economic status
family climate
Geography
Nutrition
non-shared environment
Pregnancy
siblings order
parental preference
peers, school
Illnesses
Sources of Variability in Twin Studies
if correlation is lower than for MZ, can attribute that to genetic influence
If correlation is lower than MZ reared together, can attribute that to environment
Heritability (H)
proportion of the total variation in a given characteristic in a given population
that can be attributed to genetic differences between members of that
population
Genotype
Underlying Genetic factors (Gv)
Phenotype
Expression of underlying Genetic factors (Gv)
Can be influenced by Environment (Ev)
also interaction between G and E + residual variation
Phenotype
Expression of underlying Genetic factors (Gv)
Can be influenced by Environment (Ev)
also interaction between G and E + residual variation
Heritability (H) is simply …
the proportion of phenotypic variance (Pv) that is due to
genetic influences (Gv):
H ≈ Gv/Pv (Gv divided by Pv)
Heritability Ratio
The heritability of a particular trait is not absolute - it is statistic for a given population
at a given time
‘H’ depends on:
the genetic variability of that population
the degree of variation in its environment
Problems with heritability estimates
assumes that genetic and environmental contribution are independent
Heritability seems to vary with SES
could change depending on the age at which it is estimated
Gender differences in IQ
The general trend is a decline in gender differences over the past fifty years
Evidence for environmental explanations of these differences
Racial differences in IQ
Difference in SES, environment, culture?
“The Bell Curve”
Herrnstein & Murray (1994) - heritability of intelligence, waste of money to help underprivileged groups that are “genetically dumber”
Jensen (‘g’ theorist)
Argued that if environments were equalised, the 15-point IQ gap would only be
reduced by about 5 points, so it’s still a real difference
The Bell Curve premises
- There has to be a meaningful single number that can be given to intelligence
- You have to be able to rank people in a single linear fashion and this rank needs to
predict social outcomes - IQ has to be highly heritable
- IQ has to be effectively unchangeable
these are all invalid premises
Bias
statistical concept – ie. Do IQ tests systematically underestimate the
intelligence of certain groups
fairness
social issue
race stereotype threat
caused the black subjects to under perform
The Flynn effect
Flynn (1987) showed increases of 5 to 25 points on IQ tests in a generation over 14 countries
Increases are in raw scores. May not be immediately obvious due to revised norms: mean is always recalibrated to 100
why IQ is rising but people are getting worse on SATs
Flynn (2007) suggested that through “modernization”, a much larger proportion of people have become accustomed to dealing with abstract concepts - IQ tests measure abstract problem solving ability
ethics
branch of philosophy that investigates good and bad right and wrong duty and obligation
Morality
Deals with questions of duty obligation and conductor our actions right or wrong
Problems with IQ tests
Biassed
Does not measure creativity or wisdom etc.
Indigenous cultures focus on environment and no IQ tests involve these questions
Variability is instantly introduced when IQ tests are translated into different languages
There is a difference in IQ amongst racial groups but this isn’t necessarily an indicator of absolute intelligence amongst them
Ethical Absolutism
A belief that things are inherently right and inherently wrong, regardless of consequences and actions. Holding of absolute principles
Problems with ethical absolutism
don’t provide enough info to deal with real-life dilemmas.
difficult to maintain this perspective when it comes to personal things - family in danger
Ethical Relativism
There is no universally valid or correct standards of right or wrong, relies on its consequences and practicality
problems with ethical relativism
requires us to do something bad in order to gain good consequences. But does ‘the end always justify the means’?
Extreme forms of relativism make it difficult for us to make moral judgements at all
4 areas of ethical regulation in professional practice
- Consent
- Confidentiality - unless required by law
- Personal & Professional Welfare
- Professional Relationships - vulnerability/power imbalances
ethical concerns in research
- Safety
- Stress
- Deception
- Informed consent
- Freedom to withdraw
- Confidentiality and anonymity
Ethics in Animal Research
Animal suffering is minimised in experimental procedures and is outweighed by the likely benefit of the research
Arguments FOR animal research
inexpensive
are like humans - study ourselves through them
not like humans - less complex, easier to study and manipulate
Arguments AGAINST animal research
are like humans - suffer in similar ways
not like humans - If they are fundamentally different, can they really teach us anything about ourselves
sometimes done for trivial/exploitative reasons (cosmetics)
