LESSON 8.1 Knowing Your Intelligence PDF

Chapter 8 INTELLIGENCE INTRODUCTION Intelligence is a complex and multifaceted concept that encompasses a range of cognitive abilities, skills, and talents. Traditionally, intelligence has been measured by standardized tests that focus on logical reasoning, mathematical ability, and lingu...

Chapter 8 INTELLIGENCE INTRODUCTION Intelligence is a complex and multifaceted concept that encompasses a range of cognitive abilities, skills, and talents. Traditionally, intelligence has been measured by standardized tests that focus on logical reasoning, mathematical ability, and linguistic skills. However, contemporary theories suggest that intelligence is not a single, fixed attribute but rather a diverse set of capabilities. This broader understanding recognizes that individuals have unique strengths and potentials, which can be nurtured and developed in different contexts. By exploring and evaluating these diverse intelligences, we can gain a deeper insight into our personal abilities and how they influence our learning, problem-solving, and interactions with the world. In this chapter, we will also be exploring the factors that influence our intelligence. Studies say that our Intelligence often appears to be passed down within families, but what do you think causes this? Do you think that our intellect primarily is a result of genetics, or is it shaped by our surroundings? This question sparks a debate in psychology. If intelligence is largely inherited, then people’s social and economic positions would likely reflect innate differences. However, if intelligence is primarily influenced by the environment, then children from less advantaged backgrounds might face similar disadvantages in life—though there is some hope that improving their surroundings could help them develop greater intelligence and achieve more. Let us look at some of the evidence and better understand the underlying factors that shape our intelligence.  LESSON NO. 8.1 KNOWING YOUR INTELLIGENCE INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of the sessions, the students should be able to: 1. Define the meaning of intelligence; 2. Explain the different theories and types of intelligence and their corresponding characteristics; 3. Identify the ways to assess intelligence; and 4. Examine their personal intelligence level through an activity. WHY DO YOU THINK? ELABORATION/ABSTRACTION DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE In many studies, intelligence has been defined as whatever intelligence tests measure, which has tended to be school smarts. But intelligence is not a quality like height or weight, which has the same meaning to everyone worldwide. People assign this term to the qualities that enable success in their own time and culture (Sternberg & Kaufman, 1998). In a North American high school, it may reflect mastering difficult concepts in calculus or chemistry. Intelligence is the ability to learn from experience, solve problems, and use knowledge to adapt to new situations. You probably know some people with talents in science, others who excel in the humanities, and still others gifted in athletics, art, music, or dance. You may also know a talented artist who is stumped by the simplest math problem, or a brilliant math student who struggles when discussing literature. Are all these people intelligent? Could you rate their intelligence on a single scale? Or would you need several different scales? To answer these questions, let us get to understand the different theories of intelligence. THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE Spearman and Thurstone’s Intelligence Theories – General Intelligence (g) According to one popular theory in psychology, the core of intelligence is an overall mental ability called the g-factor, where the “g” denotes the idea that it represents a general level of intelligence, from navigating the sea to excelling in school. The term was introduced in the early 1900s by Charles Spearman, who believed that g was an overarching construct encompassing several specific mental abilities like the working memory, reasoning, problem solving, and representing knowledge (Kan et al., 2013; Ziegler et al., 2011). Spearman granted that people often have special, outstanding abilities. But he noted that those who score high in one area, such as verbal intelligence, typically score higher than average in other areas, such as spatial or reasoning ability. Spearman’s (1904) belief stemmed in part from his work with factor analysis, a statistical procedure that identifies clusters of related variables. One of Spearman’s early critics was L. L. Thurstone (1887–1955). Thurstone gave 56 different tests to people and mathematically identified seven clusters of primary mental abilities (word fluency, verbal comprehension, spatial ability, perceptual speed, numerical ability, inductive reasoning, and memory). Thurstone did not rank people on a single scale of general aptitude. But when other investigators studied these profiles, they  detected a persistent tendency: Those who excelled in one of the seven clusters generally scored well on the others. So, the investigators concluded, there was still some evidence of a g factor. We might, then, liken mental abilities to physical abilities: Athleticism is not one thing, but many. The ability to run fast is distinct from the eye-hand coordination required to throw a ball on target. Yet there remains some tendency for good things to come packaged together-for running speed and throwing accuracy to correlate. So, too, with intelligence—for humans worldwide (Warne & Burningham, 2019). The Cattel-Horn-Carroll Intelligence Theory Raymond Cattell (1905–1998) and his student, John Horn (1928–2006) simplified Thurstone’s primary mental abilities into two factors: fluid intelligence (Gf)—our ability to reason speedily and abstractly, as when solving logic problems—and crystallized intelligence (Gc)—our accumulated knowledge as reflected in vocabulary and applied skills (Cattell, 1963). Example, an experienced psychotherapist may use her Gf to develop creative, new, and a more holistic intervention to treat patients. Her Gc may be evident in the way she expertly discusses how she handles her patients during a conference. Our Gf and Gc often work together just like solving problems from our accumulated knowledge. After analyzing hundreds of previous intelligence studies, Carroll (1993) found support on the following: There is a general intelligence factor (g); we have more specific abilities; Gf and Gc bridge the gap from general intelligence to specific abilities. We use our g-based fluid intelligence to learn, and we gain crystallized intelligence (specific abilities) in return. Through this, Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory was conceptualized, affirming a general intellectual ability factor, the existence of Gf and Gc, and identifying more specific abilities, such as reading and writing ability, memory capacity, and processing speed (Schneider & McGrew, 2012). Theories of Multiple Intelligences ▪ Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Consider Sven, a grade-school student who is two years behind in reading, but who shows his teacher how to solve a difficult math problem. Or what about his classmate, Malika, who is also a poor reader but plays intricate pieces of piano music? Both of these children show clear signs of what have sometimes been called aptitudes, yet there are some psychologists who feel that they are better labeled types of intelligence. One such psychologist is Howard Gardner of Harvard University. Gardner (2008, 2011) theorizes that there are nine distinctly different kinds of intelligence, including: Linguistic (language abilities), Logical-mathematical (logic and number abilities), Visual (pictorial abilities), Musical (music abilities), Bodily- kinesthetic (physical abilities), Intrapersonal (self-knowledge), Interpersonal (social abilities), Naturalist (an ability to understand the natural environment), Existential (an ability to understand spirituality and existence). If Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is correct then traditional views really only capture a small part of real-world intelligence, namely linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial abilities (Roberts & Lipnevich, 2012). Instead, Gardner would argue that a student like Malika should also be considered highly intelligent owing to her skill with music. In addition,  Gardner’s notion of multiple intelligences continues to influence many educators’ belief that children have different “learning styles, ” such as visual and auditory (Newton & Miah, 2017). o Sternberg’s Three Intelligences Robert Sternberg (1985, 2015, 2017) agrees with Gardner that there is more to success than academic intelligence and that we have multiple intelligences. But Sternberg’s triarchic theory proposes three, not eight or nine, reliably measured intelligences: Analytical (academic problem-solving) intelligence is assessed by intelligence tests, which present well-defined problems having a single right answer. Such tests predict school grades reasonably well and vocational success more modestly. Creative intelligence is demonstrated in innovative smarts: the ability to adapt to new situations and generate novel ideas. Practical intelligence is required for everyday tasks that may be poorly defined and may have multiple solutions. Gardner and Sternberg differ in some areas, but they agree on two important points: Multiple abilities can contribute to life success, and differing varieties of giftedness bring both spice to life and challenges for education. Trained to such variety, many teachers have applied multiple intelligence theories in their classrooms. o Emotional Intelligence Emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive, use, and understand emotions in us and others, as well as the ability to manage those feelings effectively (Caruso, Salovey, & Mayer, 2015). Being emotionally skilled can make us more flexi- ble, adaptable, agreeable, and emotionally mature (English et al., 2012; Johnson, Batey, & Holdsworth, 2009). But how do psychologists think about emotional intelligence? While some researchers view it as a stable trait that people possess to a greater or lesser extent (Gugliandolo et al., 2015), others see emotional intelligence as a collection of skills that can be learned (Campo, Laborde, & Weckemann, 2015). The idea that we can improve upon our emotional intelligence is an important one. A lot of circumstances tell us that we need to develop this characteristic. For example, focusing on various types of psychopathology, including common forms of psychoses, as well as mood and anxiety disorders. Difficulties with emotional intelligence have been associated with schizophrenia and depression. And on another example, using it in psychological therapies. Clinical and counseling psychologists draw heavily in emotional intelligence. They rely on such skills when listening to their clients and discuss emotional issues as well as to understand and manage their own emotions to deliver therapy effectively. Also another example, psychologists have found that emotional intelligence is related with other psychological concepts, like prosocial and anti-social behavior, nonverbal communication skills, which depend on the ability to understand people’s emotional states. Given that emotional intelligence is very important in our everyday life, we should take time to improve and develop this skill. It is natural to welcome positive emotions, such as joy, while avoiding negative emotions, such as anger. But make no mistake—being able to recognize and effectively manage negative emotions can be valuable and constructive. Recognizing emotions in yourself and others, being emotionally intelligent is associated with understanding how to manage your emotions appropriately, a necessary skill in an increasingly social world. Many elements contribute to emotional intelligence, this consist of four elements: Perceiving emotions (recognizing them in faces, music, and stories, and identifying one’s own emotions), Understanding emotions (predicting them and how they may change and blend), Managing emotions (knowing how to express them in varied situations, and how to handle others’ emotions), and Using emotions to facilitate adaptive or creative thinking.  Emotionally intelligent people are both socially aware and self-aware. They avoid being hijacked by overwhelming depression, anxiety, or anger. They can read others’ emotional cues and know what to say to soothe a grieving friend, encourage a workmate, and manage a conflict. They can delay gratification in pursuit of long-range rewards. Thus, emotionally intelligent people tend to succeed in relationship, career, and parenting situations where academically smarter but less emotionally intelligent people may fail. They also tend to be happy and healthy. Aware of these benefits, school-based programs have sought to increase teachers’ and students’ emotional intelligence. INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT AND DYNAMICS Studying the Science: Characteristics of Good Intelligence Tests The first question we should always ask about a psychometric test is, “Is it reliable?,” which refers to the test’s ability to deliver consistent results. The second is, “Is it valid?,” a question that gets at whether the test actually measures what it claims to measure. Third, we want to ask about whether the test can accurately assess a diverse group of people. We can be a bit more certain of this if the test has been standardized. Finally, we’d also want to know whether the test was objective; in other words, that the results would be interpreted the same way by many people. It’s important to note that the vast majority of “IQ tests” that you can find on the Internet would not meet the bar that’s set by these standards—these tests may have some entertainment value, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that your score on them will be a good measure of your intelligence. In a good psychometric test four elements, which are the following, should be present: o Reliability – a reliable psychometric test must give approximately the same score each time a person takes it (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2018). In other words, the scores should be consistent each time the test is taken. It is easy to see why unreliable tests have little value. Imagine a medical test for pregnancy or breast cancer, for instance, which gave positive and negative responses for the same woman on the same day. To check the reliability of a test, we could give it to a large group of people. Then each person could be tested again a week later to establish test–retest reliability. We also might want to know whether scores on one half of the test items match scores on the other half (split-half reliability). If two versions of a test are available, we could compare scores on one version to scores on the other (equivalent-forms reliability). In all cases, if the test is reliable then the scores being compared should be similar, or highly correlated with one another. o Validity – Just because a psychometric test is reliable, however, does not mean that it should be trusted; test validity is also important. To see why this is the case, try creating an IQ test with 10 questions that only you could possibly answer. Your test would be very reliable: Each time you give the test, everyone scores zero, except you, who scores 100 percent (apparently, you’re a genius!). Even though we all have days when it seems we are the only smart person left on the planet, it should be obvious this wouldn’t be a great intelligence test. A test must also have validity; in other words, it should measure what it claims to measure (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2015). By no stretch of the imagination could a test of intelligence be valid if the person who wrote it is the only one who can pass it. How is validity established? Great question! Validity is usually demonstrated by comparing test scores to actual performance on some other measure (or criterion) that is known to assess the construct you’re trying to measure. This is called criterion validity. Scores on a test of math ability, for example, might be compared to grades in high school math (the criterion). If high test scores correlate with high grades, or some other standard (criterion) of success, the test is more likely to be valid. o Objectivity and Standardization - If your IQ test is given the same score when evaluated by different people, it is an objective test. However, objectivity is not  enough to guarantee a fair test. Useful tests must also be standardized (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2015). Test standardization refers to two things. First, it means that standard procedures are used in giving the test. The instructions, answer forms, amount of time to work and so forth are the same for everyone. Second, it means finding the norm, or average score, for a large group of people similar to those for whom the test was designed. Without standardization, we couldn’t fairly compare the scores of people taking the test at different times. And without norms, there would be no way to tell whether a score is high, low, or average. For many tests, including intelligence tests, developers will establish norms for a variety of groups, including different age groups, sexes, or races. WAYS TO MEASURE INTELLIGENCE Intelligence can be measured in a number of different ways. In this section, we’ll examine three of them: general aptitude tests, the Stanford-Binet test, and the Wechsler Scales. o General Aptitude Tests - An aptitude is a capacity for learning certain abilities. Persons with mechanical, artistic, or musical aptitudes are likely to do well in careers involving mechanics, art, or music, respectively. Are there tests for general aptitudes? How are they different from intelligence tests? Aptitude tests measure a narrower range of abilities than do intelligence tests (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2018). For example, special aptitude tests predict whether you will succeed in a single area, such as clerical work or computer programming (Figure 9.2). Multiple aptitude tests measure two or more types of ability. These tests tend to be more like intelligence tests, and it’s possible that you’ve taken one yourself. For example, the National Career Assessment Examination (NCAE), as do the tests for entry into graduate schools of law, medicine, business, and dentistry. Each of these group tests is designed to predict your chances for success in college programs. Because the tests measure general knowledge and a variety of mental aptitudes (language, math, and reasoning), each can also be used to estimate intelligence. The broadest aptitude measures are general intelligence tests, which assess a wide variety of intellectual abilities (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2018). o Stanford Binet Intelligence Test – Alfred Binet, the French Minister of Education, wanted to find a way to distinguish slower students from the more capable (or the capable but lazy). So Binet and an associate created a test made up of “intellectual” questions and problems. Next, they learned which questions an average child could answer at each age. By comparing test scores of individual children to the average score for their ages, they could tell whether a child was performing up to his or her potential, which is also know as their mental age (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2018). For example, an 8-year-old with a below-average mental age (perhaps performing at the level of typical 6-year-old) would struggle with age- appropriate schoolwork. American psychologists quickly saw the value of Alfred Binet’s test. By 1916, Lewis Terman and others at Stanford University had revised it for use in North America. After more revisions, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5), continues to be widely used. The SB5 primarily is made up of age-ranked questions that get a little harder at each age level. The SB5 is appropriate for people from age 2 to 85+ years, and scores on the test are very reliable (Roid & Pomplun, 2012). The SB5 measures five cognitive factors, or mental abilities, thought to make up general intelligence: fluid reasoning (roughly related to fluid intelligence), knowledge (roughly related to crystallized intelligence), quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory. Each factor is measured with verbal questions (those involving words and numbers) and nonverbal questions (items that use pictures and  objects). If you were to take the SB5, you would be assessing your general intelligence (g- factor, or the overall score), verbal intelligence (the score on the verbal questions), nonverbal intelligence (the score on the nonverbal questions), and each of the five cognitive factors (Roid & Pomplun, 2012). From such tests, German psychologist William Stern derived the famous term intelligence quotient, or IQ. The IQ was simply a person’s mental age divided by chronological age and multiplied by 100 to get rid of the decimal point. Thus, an average child, whose mental age (8) and chronological age (8) are the same, has an IQ of 100. But an 8-year-old who answers questions as would a typical 10- year-old has an IQ of 125: The original IQ formula worked fairly well for children but not for adults. (Should a 40- year-old who does as well on the test as an average 20-year-old be assigned an IQ of only 50?) Most current intelligence tests, including the Stanford-Binet, no longer compute an IQ in this manner (though the term IQ still lingers as a shorthand expression for “intelligence test score”). Instead, they assign a score that represents a test-taker’s performance relative to the average performance (which is arbitrarily set at 100) of others the same age. Most people—about 68 percent of those taking an intelligence test—fall between 85 and 115. o Wechsler Tests - Psychologist David Wechsler created what is now the most widely used individual intelligence test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV), together with a version for school-age children (the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children— Fifth Edition [WISC]), and another for preschool children (Evers et al., 2012). Like the Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler tests yield a single overall intelligence (g-factor) score. In addition, these tests also have separate scores for performance (nonverbal) intelligence, and verbal intelligence—language- or symbol-oriented intelligence (Neukrug & Fawcett, 2015). References: Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2021). Psychology (Thirteenth edition). Worth Publishers, Macmillan Learning. Coon, D., Mitterer, J. O., & Martini, T. (2022). Introduction to psychology : gateways to mind and behavior (Sixteenth edition). Cengage.