Master Introductory Psychology Volume 3: Master Introductory Psychology, #3

Chapter 1: Intelligence

What is Intelligence?

Intelligence is something we all think is important, but what exactly does this term refer to? We might all hope to have intelligence, but what are we hoping for? Always knowing the right answer? Making better decisions? Earning higher grades or more income? Being more successful in reaching our goals? Having a greater sense of control over our lives?

In this chapter we'll be examining the concept of intelligence in three main ways. First, we'll consider how to define intelligence. What does it mean to have intelligence (or not) and how have definitions of intelligence changed over time? Second, once we have some ideas about how to define intelligence, we'll look at attempts to measure it. How can we assess someone's intelligence? Finally, once we have assessments of intelligence, what do these results really mean? What causes differences in scores and how should we interpret these differences?

The first thing that we should remember when considering the idea of intelligence is that it is just that; an idea. Like many properties that psychologists attempt to investigate, intelligence is a hypothetical construct. We need to avoid the temptation for reification: treating an idea as if it were a real, concrete object that can be objectively measured. When we consider someone's IQ score there can be a tendency to think of that score as a measurement of some fixed entity, but we should try to avoid thinking this way.

Since intelligence isn't a concrete object we can directly observe, we need to agree on some terms in order to make sure that we're all talking about the same thing. What should we consider intelligence to be? Let's take a look at some historical precedents for the concept of intelligence, along with some newer approaches that have attempted to clarify this potentially vague notion.

Charles Spearman (1863- 1945) is considered to be one of the first researchers to provide evidence that intelligence is a single underlying trait which affects a number of abilities. While looking at relationships between performance in different areas, Spearman found that high performance seemed to be linked across domains. People who did well on one task also tended to do well on other tasks. Spearman collected results for performance on many tasks, then used factor analysis; a statistical technique for examining whether a large number of correlations can be explained using a small number of factors. Spearman identified one underlying factor influencing many cognitive abilities and he called this g-factor, for general intelligence. Spearman recognized that people also have specialized skills but he believed that these were influenced by an individual's g-factor. A helpful mnemonic for remembering Spearman's association with g-factor is to imagine a spear with one point – pointing to the single factor of g.

Louis Leon Thurstone (1887-1955) challenged Spearman's concept of g and proposed a different organization of mental abilities. Thurstone proposed a multi-factor theory of 7 primary mental abilities which each influenced particular sets of skills. Despite Thurstone's evidence for these domains, further analysis has supported the idea that there is still a general intelligence factor which influences several primary mental abilities at once. You could visualize this as a sort of pyramid: a single g-factor (at the top) influences several different domains of mental ability (the middle), which each then influence the development of many specific skills (at the base).

We still see echos of this debate today and definitions of intelligence are never satisfactory for everyone. Similar to Thurstone's primary mental abilities, Howard Gardner has proposed a theory of multiple intelligences, believing that our mental abilities should be considered as separate modules. It is possible for an individual to flourish in one area of intelligence independent of others. Gardner has suggested there is evidence for the existence of at least 8 separate intelligences including verbal, mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic intelligences.

Possible evidence for these separate intelligences can be seen in prodigies, children with high ability in a single area but normal development in other areas, and savants, individuals with extremely high proficiency in one area, accompanied by low ability or disability in other areas. The existence of prodigies and savants suggests that intelligences are (or at least can be) separate domains.

Perhaps the most famous savant in recent times was Kim Peek (1951-2009), the inspiration for Dustin Hoffman's character Raymond Babbitt in the film Rain Man (note: in the film, Babbitt was portrayed as autistic though Peek did not have autism). Peek's prodigious memory for facts and figures was accompanied by disabilities in other areas such as difficulties with reasoning and metaphorical thinking along with physical coordination problems.

Cases of patients with brain damage resulting in specific types of deficits also provide some support for a modular view of multiple intelligences. If a person is in an accident and subsequently loses the ability to perform a specific set of skills without loss of ability in other areas, this might indicate those skills are a separate module of intelligence. Similar evidence that intelligences are separated comes from cases of acquired savant syndrome. In these cases, brain damage actually causes a sudden heightening of ability in a particular area, which may mean that inhibition of some brain regions (via injury) has the potential to boost performance in other areas. This doesn't mean that you should start bashing your head against a wall in hopes of boosting your math scores, but perhaps there is a way to harness this inhibition on a temporary basis. At the end of this chapter we'll look at transcranial stimulation, which may allow us to temporarily knock out specific brain regions in order to allow others to shine.

While these cases of damage suggest a separation of skills, they don't necessarily suggest that overall development is not still influenced by some single underlying factor (like g). Specific damage demonstrates that some types of intelligence may be isolated in their localization in the brain but this doesn't provide conclusive evidence that these types of intelligence develop separately.

Even if we accept that there are separate multiple intelligences this still doesn't necessarily provide us with clear definitions of what intelligence is. For instance, if we were to agree on some definition of intelligence which included bodily-kinesthetic abilities, we would still have the problem of how to define this particular area and then how to assess it. Should bodily-kinesthetic intelligence include reaction time, muscle fiber types, balance, endurance, or hand-eye coordination? Should we assess Michael Jordan's bodily-kinesthetic intelligence based on his basketball playing or his baseball playing? How do we separate this intelligence from specific skills developed through extensive practice? If I practice free-throws for hours each day, I will probably improve at least a little bit, but has my bodily-kinesthetic intelligence improved, or just this specific skill? Is there a difference?

Robert Sternberg has suggested that our definitions of intelligence should really be focused on those abilities which bring us overall success in living. Excellent performance on math or reasoning questions may not accurately predict success in dealing with real-life problems, and a practical measure of intelligence should reflect this. In real life, problems aren't clearly defined and almost never have single solutions. We're often on our own in defining the problems we face, generating multiple solutions for these problems, and then weighing a number of factors in determining which courses of action we should implement and how we should adjust those courses along the way.

Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence proposes 3 main types of intelligence: analytical intelligence; the ability to generate solutions to specific problems, creative intelligence; the ability to generate novel solutions, and practical intelligence; the ability to choose the most appropriate solutions based on the situation and context. Practical intelligence means recognizing that the best answer isn't always the same as the correct answer, such as knowing when to accept your boss's flawed decision, when to tell your friend a new outfit looks great (when it doesn't), or when to give up fighting an argument even though logic is on your side.

This brings us to consider the possible role of emotional intelligence, first proposed by Peter Salovey and John Mayer (no, not that John Mayer), though perhaps most associated with Daniel Goleman, who has written several popular books on the subject. Emotional intelligence emphasizes the importance of recognizing, expressing, managing, and using emotions. The ability to console a friend, conceal contempt for a co-worker, or deliver a rousing speech can influence our likelihood of success and therefore could be considered a fundamental part of behaving intelligently.

A final idea for defining intelligence comes from Raymond Cattell, who used factor analysis to distinguish between fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence refers to the capacity to solve new problems and incorporate new information effectively. Crystallized intelligence, on the other hand, refers to specific knowledge and skills that have been accumulated through experience.

Imagine that you're an avid video gamer who has logged many, many (perhaps too many) hours playing Call of Duty. Now you purchase a new first-person shooter game. You are delighted to find that the controls for this new game are identical to those for Call of Duty. Your immediate success in the early levels of this new game could be attributed to your crystallized intelligence. You have previously accumulated specific skills in using this controller layout, and these existing skills can be applied directly to the new game. In later levels, however, you find that none of your old strategies from Call of Duty seem to be working, and you are forced to use your fluid intelligence to adapt to these new circumstances and come up with novel solutions in order to beat these levels.

Assessing Intelligence

Even if psychologists can't quite agree on the perfect definition of what intelligence is or should be, this hasn't stopped them from attempting to measure it. This desire to measure first and ask questions later is true for many other psychological traits, abilities, and processes. The study and design of testing for abilities and traits, including personality traits (which will be addressed in the next chapter), is known as psychometrics, and a person doing the investigating would be a psychometrician.

Test Types

In designing an intelligence assessment, I may want to know the level of difficulty that someone is capable of solving. In this case, I would probably look at whether a person is able to solve a particularly difficult puzzle or not. This would be considered a power test. In this context power refers to how well a measurement can differentiate results.

A question that everyone can solve has low power because it doesn't tell us anything about how people differ. A question that some people can solve and others can't solve allows us to make finer distinctions between people and therefore would have higher power.

Designing tests isn't just about the questions but also includes other factors like time. Questions with low power may still be useful if you want to see how quickly someone can solve a number of simple puzzles. You could measure how many puzzles a person is able to solve in some set amount of time. This would be considered a speed test rather than a power test. In this case, it's ok if you use questions that everyone can solve (low power) because you're differentiating people based on their speed, not on whether they can answer the question.

Most tests you take in school measure knowledge or skills that you have learned, so they would be considered achievement tests. IQ tests are generally intended to be aptitude tests; tests that predict potential ability. Predicting ability is far more challenging than simply measuring achievement, which is why the design and implementation of intelligence tests can be controversial. While a low score on an achievement test may simply indicate someone hasn't learned something yet, a low score on an aptitude test could be interpreted as meaning the person is incapable of ever learning something. This interpretation may have major implications for a person's future, so we have to be particularly cautious when it comes to designing aptitude tests and drawing conclusions from them.

Whenever we consider some hypothetical construct or property like intelligence there are three points we should examine closely: The property (which we think exists), the behaviors we associate with this property (the observable behaviors that make us think it exists in the first place), and finally, responses to assessments aimed at measuring this property.

As we consider these three points, we can question the relationships between them. Do those behaviors really represent