Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Theory of multiple intelligences From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theory of multiple intelligences is a theory of intelligence that differentiates it into specific (primarily sensory) "modalities", rather than seeing intelligence as dominated by a single general ability. This model was proposed by Howard Gardner in his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Gardner articulated seven criteria for a behavior to be considered an intelligence.[1] These were that the intelligences showed: potential for brain isolation by brain damage, place in evolutionary history, presence of core operations, susceptibility to encoding (symbolic expression), a distinct developmental progression, the existence of savants, prodigies and other exceptional people, and support from experimental psychology and psychometric findings.

Gardner chose eight abilities that he held to meet these criteria:[2] musicalrhythmic, visualspatial, verballinguistic, logicalmathematical, bodilykinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. He later suggested that existential and moral intelligence may also be worthy of inclusion.[3] Although the distinction between intelligences has been set out in great detail, Gardner opposes the idea of labeling learners to a specific intelligence. Each individual possesses a unique blend of all the intelligences. Gardner firmly maintains that his theory of multiple intelligences should "empower learners", not restrict them to one modality of learning.[4]

Gardner argues intelligence is categorized into three primary or overarching categories, those of which are formulated by the abilities. According to Gardner, intelligence is: 1) The ability to create an effective product or offer a service that is valued in a culture, 2) a set of skills that make it possible for a person to solve problems in life, and 3) the potential for finding or creating solutions for problems, which involves gathering new knowledge.[5]

Those who believe in one kind of intelligence think that all intelligence comes from a single factor. They back up this idea with the fact that there is a high positive correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and the ability to complete simple cognitive tasks and between reaction time and intelligence.

Contents

[hide]

1 Intelligence modalities

o 1.1 Musicalrhythmic and harmonic

o 1.2 Visualspatial

o 1.3 Verballinguistic

o 1.4 Logicalmathematical

o 1.5 Bodilykinesthetic

o 1.6 Interpersonal

o 1.7 Intrapersonal

o 1.8 Naturalistic

o 1.9 Existential

2 Critical reception

o 2.1 Definition of intelligence

o 2.2 Neo-Piagetian criticism

o 2.3 IQ tests

o 2.4 Lack of empirical evidence

3 Use in education

4 See also

5 References

6 Further reading

Intelligence modalities[edit]

Musicalrhythmic and harmonic[edit] Main article: Musicality

This area has to do with sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. People with a high musical intelligence normally have good pitch and may even have absolute pitch, and are able to sing, play musical instruments, and compose music. They have sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, meter, tone, melody or timbre.[6][7]

Visualspatial[edit] Main article: Spatial intelligence (psychology)

This area deals with spatial judgment and the ability to visualize with the mind's eye. Spatial ability is one of the three factors beneath g in the hierarchical model of intelligence.[7]

Verballinguistic[edit] Main article: Linguistic intelligence

People with high verbal-linguistic intelligence display a facility with words and languages. They are typically good at reading, writing, telling stories and memorizing words along with dates.[7] Verbal ability is one of the most g-loaded abilities.[8] This type of intelligence is measured with the Verbal IQ in WAIS-III.

Logicalmathematical[edit] Further information: Reason

This area has to do with logic, abstractions, reasoning, numbers and critical thinking.[7] This also has to do with having the capacity to understand the underlying principles of some kind of causal system.[6] Logical reasoning is closely linked to fluid intelligence and to general intelligence (g factor).[9]

Bodilykinesthetic[edit] Further information: Gross motor skill and Fine motor skill

The core elements of the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence are control of one's bodily motions and the capacity to handle objects skillfully.[7] Gardner elaborates to say that this also includes a sense of timing, a clear sense of the goal of a physical action, along with the ability to train responses.

People who have high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence should be generally good at physical activities such as sports, dance, acting, and making things.

Gardner believes that careers that suit those with high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence include: athletes, dancers, musicians, actors, builders, police officers, and soldiers. Although these careers can be duplicated through virtual simulation, they will not produce the actual physical learning that is needed in this intelligence.[10]

Interpersonal[edit] Main article: Social skills

This area has to do with interaction with others.[7] In theory, individuals who have high interpersonal intelligence are characterized by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings, temperaments and motivations, and their ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group. According to Gardner in How Are Kids Smart: Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, "Inter- and Intra- personal intelligence is often misunderstood with being extroverted or liking other people..."[11] Those with high interpersonal intelligence communicate effectively and empathize easily with others, and may be either leaders or followers. They often enjoy discussion and debate.

Gardner believes that careers that suit those with high interpersonal intelligence include sales persons, politicians, managers, teachers, counselors and social workers.[12]

Intrapersonal[edit] Further information: Introspection

This area has to do with introspective and self-reflective capacities. This refers to having a deep understanding of the self; what one's strengths/ weaknesses are, what makes one unique, being able to predict one's own reactions/emotions.

Naturalistic[edit]

This area has to do with nurturing and relating information to ones natural surroundings.[7] Examples include classifying natural forms such as animal and plant species and rocks and mountain types. This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef.[6] This sort of ecological receptiveness is deeply rooted in a "sensitive, ethical, and holistic understanding" of the world and its complexitiesincluding the role of humanity within the greater ecosphere.[13]

Existential[edit] Further information: Spirituality

Some proponents of multiple intelligence theory proposed spiritual or religious intelligence as a possible additional type. Gardner did not want to commit to a spiritual intelligence, but suggested that an "existential" intelligence may be a useful construct.[14] The hypothesis of an existential intelligence has been further explored by educational researchers.[15]

Critical reception[edit]

Gardner argues that there is a wide range of cognitive abilities, but that there are only very weak correlations among them. For example, the theory postulates that a child who learns to multiply easily is not necessarily more intelligent than a child who has more difficulty on this task. The child who takes more time to master multiplication may best learn to multiply through a different approach, may excel in a field outside mathematics, or may be looking at and understanding the multiplication process at a

fundamentally deeper level. Such a fundamental understanding can result in slowness and can hide a

mathematical intelligence potentially higher than that of a child who quickly memorizes the multiplication

table despite possessing a shallower understanding of the process of multiplication. [citation needed].

Intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts, supporting the prevailing theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences (MI).[16] The theory has been widely criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on subjective

judgement.[17] Certain models of alternative education employ the approaches suggested by the

theory[citation needed].

Definition of intelligence[edit]

One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word "intelligence", but rather denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood, and instead uses the word "intelligence" where other people have traditionally used words like "ability" and "aptitude". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg,[18][19] Eysenck,[20] and Scarr.[21] White (2006) points out that Gardner's selection and application of criteria for his "intelligences" is subjective and arbitrary, and that a different researcher would likely have come up with different criteria.[22]

Defenders of MI theory argue that the traditional definition of intelligence is too narrow, and thus a broader definition more accurately reflects the differing ways in which humans think and learn.[23]They would state that the traditional interpretation of intelligence collapses under the weight of its own logic and definition, noting that intelligence is usually defined as the cognitive or mental capacity of an individual, which by logical necessity would include all forms of mental qualities, not just the ones most transparent to I.Q. tests.[citation needed]

Some criticisms arise from the fact that Gardner has not provided a test of his multiple intelligences. He originally defined it as the ability to solve problems that have value in at least one culture, or as something that a student is interested in. He then added a disclaimer that he has no fixed definition, and his classification is more of an artistic judgment than fact:

Ultimately, it would certainly be desirable to have an algorithm for the selection of an intelligence, such that any trained researcher could determine whether a candidate's intelligence met the appropriate criteria. At present, however, it must be admitted that the selection (or rejection) of a candidate's intelligence is reminiscent more of an artistic judgment than of a scientific assessment.[24]

Gardner argues that by calling linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities intelligences, but not artistic, musical, athletic, etc. abilities, the former are needlessly aggrandized. Certain critics balk at this widening of the definition, saying that it ignores "the connotation of intelligence ... [which] has always connoted the kind of thinking skills that makes one successful in school."[25]

Gardner writes "I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot."[26] Critics hold that given this statement, any interest or ability can be redefined as "intelligence". Thus, studying intelligence becomes difficult, because it diffuses into the broader concept of ability or talent. Gardner's addition of the naturalistic intelligence and conceptions of the existential and moral intelligences are seen as fruits of this diffusion. Defenders of the MI theory would argue that this is simply a recognition of the broad scope of inherent mental abilities, and that such an exhaustive scope by nature defies a one-dimensional classification such as an IQ value.

The theory and definitions have been critiqued by Perry D. Klein as being so unclear as to be tautologous and thus unfalsifiable. Having a high musical ability means being good at music while at the same time being good at music is explained by having a high musical ability.[27]

Neo-Piagetian criticism[edit]

Andreas Demetriou suggests that theories which overemphasize the autonomy of the domains are as simplistic as the theories that overemphasize the role of general intelligence and ignore the domains. He agrees with Gardner that there are indeed domains of intelligence that are relevantly autonomous of each other.[28] Some of the domains, such as verbal, spatial, mathematical, andsocial intelligence are identified by most lines of research in psychology. In Demetriou's theory, one of the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, Gardner is criticized for underestimating the effects exerted on the various domains of intelligences by processes that define general processing efficiency, such as speed of processing, executive functions, working memory, and meta-cognitive processes underlying self-awareness and self-regulation. All of these processes are integral components of general intelligence that regulate the functioning and development of different domains of intelligence.[29]

The domains are to a large extent expressions of the condition of the general processes, and may vary because of their constitutional differences but also differences in individual preferences and inclinations. Their functioning both channels and influences the operation of the general processes.[30][31] Thus, one cannot satisfactorily specify the intelligence of an individual or design effective intervention programs unless both the general processes and the domains of interest are evaluated.[32][33]

IQ tests[edit]

Gardner argues that IQ tests only measure linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities. He argues the importance of assessing in an "intelligence-fair" manner. While traditional paper-and-pen examinations favour linguistic and logical skills, there is a need for intelligence-fair measures that value the distinct modalities of thinking and learning that uniquely define each intelligence.[7]

Psychologist Alan S. Kaufman points out that IQ tests have measured spatial abilities for 70 years.[34] Modern IQ tests are greatly influenced by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory which incorporates a general intelligence but also many more narrow abilities. While IQ tests do give an overall IQ score, they now also give scores for many more narrow abilities.[34]

Lack of empirical evidence[edit]

According to a 2006 study many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics.[35]

Linda Gottfredson (2006) has argued that thousands of studies support the importance of intelligence quotient (IQ) in predicting school and job performance, and numerous other life outcomes. In contrast, empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor. She argued that despite this the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.[36]

A critical review of MI theory argues that there is little empirical evidence to support it:

To date there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the multiple intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix reported finding no empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell conceded that there was "little hard evidence for MI theory" (2000, p. 292). In 2004 Sternberg and Grigerenko stated that there were no validating studies for multiple intelligences, and in 2004 Gardner asserted that he would be "delighted were such evidence to accrue",[37] and admitted that "MI theory has few enthusiasts among psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background" because they require "psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences."[37][38]

The same review presents evidence to demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences:

... the human brain is unlikely to function via Gardners multiple intelligences. Taken together the evidence for the intercorrelations of subskills of IQ measures, the evidence for a shared set of genes associated with mathematics, reading, and g, and the evidence for shared and overlapping "what is it?" and "where is it?" neural processing pathways, and shared neural pathways for language, music, motor skills, and emotions suggest that it is unlikely that each of Gardners intelligences could operate "via a different set of neural mechanisms" (1999, p. 99). Equally important, the evidence for the "what is it?" and "where is it?" processing pathways, for Kahnemans two decision-making systems, and for adapted cognition modules suggests that these cognitive brain specializations have evolved to address very specific problems in our environment. Because Gardner claimed that the intelligences are innate potentialities related to a general content area, MI theory lacks a rationale for the phylogenetic emergence of the intelligences.[38]

The theory of multiple intelligences has often been conflated with learning styles. Learning styles are often cited as an example of pseudoscience because they lack empirical evidence orfalsifiability.[39][40] Gardner, however, has denied that multiple intelligences are learning styles and agrees that the idea of learning styles is incoherent and lacking in empirical evidence.[41]

Use in education[edit]

Gardner defines an intelligence as "biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture."[42]According to Gardner, there are more ways to do this than just through logical and linguistic intelligence. Gardner believes that the purpose of schooling "should be to develop intelligences and to help people reach vocational and avocational goals that are appropriate to their particular spectrum of intelligences. People who are helped to do so, [he] believe[s], feel more engaged and competent and therefore more inclined to serve society in a constructive way."[a]

Gardner contends that IQ tests focus mostly on logical and linguistic intelligence. Upon doing well on these tests, the chances of attending a prestigious college or university increase, which in turn creates contributing members of society.[43] While many students function well in this environment, there are those who do not. According to Helding (2009), "Standard IQ tests measure knowledge gained at a particular moment in time, they can only provide a freeze-frame view of crystallized knowledge. They cannot assess or predict a persons ability to learn, to assimilate new information, or to solve new problems."[44] Gardner's theory argues that students will be better served by a broader vision of education, wherein teachers use different methodologies, exercises and activities to reach all students, not just those who excel at linguistic and logical intelligence. It challenges educators to find "ways that will work for this student learning this topic".[45]

James Traub's article in The New Republic notes that Gardner's system has not been accepted by most academics in intelligence or teaching.[46] Gardner states that "while Multiple Intelligences theory is consistent with much empirical evidence, it has not been subjected to strong experimental tests ... Within the area of education, the applications of the theory are currently being examined in many projects. Our hunches will have to be revised many times in light of actual classroom experience."[47]

George Miller, a prominent cognitive psychologist, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that Gardner's argument consisted of "hunch and opinion". Jerome Bruner called Gardners "intelligences" "at best useful fictions," and Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein in The Bell Curve (1994) called Gardner's theory "uniquely devoid of psychometric or other quantitative evidence."[48]

Thomas Armstrong argues that Waldorf education engages all of Gardner's original seven intelligences.[b] In spite of its lack of general acceptance in the psychological community, Gardner's theory has been adopted by many schools, where it is often used to underpin discussion about learning styles,[49] and hundreds of books have been written about its applications in education.[50] Gardner himself has said he is "uneasy" with the way his theory has been used in education.[51]

See also[edit]

Living educational theory

Neuroscience

Neuroeducation

Learning styles

Life skills

Soft skills

Williams' Taxonomy

References[edit]

Notes

1. Jump up^ This information is based on an informal talk given on the

350th anniversary of Harvard University on 5 September 1986. Harvard Education Review, Harvard Education Publishing Group, 1987, 57, 18793.

2. Jump up^ "Waldorf education embodies in a truly organic sense all of

Howard Gardner's seven intelligences ... not simply an amalgam of the seven intelligences. Many schools are currently attempting to construct curricula based on Gardner's model simply through an additive process (what can we add to what we have already got?). Steiner's approach, however, was to begin with an inner vision of the child and the child's needs and build a curriculum around that vision." Thomas Armstrong, cited in Eric Oddleifson, Boston Public Schools As Arts-Integrated Learning Organizations: Developing a High Standard of Culture for All

Citations

1. Jump up^ Gilman, Lynn (2012) [2008], "The Theory of Multiple

Intelligences", Indiana University, retrieved 14 November 2012

2. Jump up^ Slavin, Robert (2009) Educational Psychology, p. 117 ISBN 0-

205-59200-7

3. Jump up^ Smith, Mark K. (2002, 2008), Gardner "Howard Gardner,

multiple intelligences and education", the encyclopedia of informal education, retrieved 22 October 2011

4. Jump up^ McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional

technology. ISTE (International Society for Technology Education). ISBN 156484188X

5. Jump up^ Gardner, Howard (2000). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. Basic Books Inc. ISBN 978-0-465-02611-1.

6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory, PBS, retrieved 9 December 2012

7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989), "Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences", Educational Researcher 18 (8):

4, doi:10.3102/0013189X018008004

8. Jump up^ Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III.

9. Jump up^ Carroll 1993

10. Jump up^ Gardner, Howard (May 1984), "Heteroglossia: A Global Perspective", Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory of Postpedagogical Studies

11. Jump up^ Gardner, H. (1995). How Are Kids Smart: Multiple Intelligences

in the ClassroomAdministrators' Version.ISBN 1-887943-03-X. National Professional Resources Dr. Howard Gardner, along with teachers and students from Fuller Elementary School in Gloucester, MA, discuss the theory behind Multiple Intelligences and demonstrate how they have integrated it into their classrooms and community. (41 minutes)

12. Jump up^ Gardner, Howard (2002), "Interpersonal Communication amongst Multiple Subjects: A Study in Redundancy",Experimental Psychology

13. Jump up^ Morris, M. (2004), "Ch. 8. The Eight One: Naturalistic Intelligence", in Kincheloe, Joe L., Multiple Intelligences Reconsidered, Peter Lang, pp. 159, ISBN 978-0-8204-7098-6

14. Jump up^ Gardner 2000

15. Jump up^ Tupper, K. W. (2002), "Entheogens and Existential Intelligence: The Use of Plant Teachers as Cognitive Tools", Canadian Journal of Education 27 (4): 499516, doi:10.2307/1602247

16. Jump up^ Geake, John (2008). "Neuromythologies in education". Educational Research 50 (2): 123133.doi:10.1080/00131880802082518.

17. Jump up^ Waterhouse, Lynn (2006). "WATERHOUSE MULTIPLE

INTELLIGENCES Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review". EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 41 (4):

207225.

18. Jump up^ Sternberg, R. J. (Winter 1983), "How much Gall is too much

gall? Review of Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences", Contemporary Education Review 2 (3): 215224

19. Jump up^ Sternberg, R. J. (1991), "Death, taxes, and bad intelligence tests", Intelligence 15 (3): 257270,doi:10.1016/0160-2896(91)90035-C

20. Jump up^ Eysenck 1994

21. Jump up^ Scarr, S. (1985), "An authors frame of mind [Review of Frames

of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences]", New Ideas in Psychology 3 (1): 95100, doi:10.1016/0732-118X(85)90056-X

22. Jump up^ Davis et al. 2011, p. 489

23. Jump up^ Nikolova, K., & Taneva-Shopova, S. (2007), "Multiple

intelligences theory and educational practice", Annual Assesn Zlatarov University 26 (2): 105109

24. Jump up^ Gardner 1983

25. Jump up^ Willingham, Daniel T. (2004), "Check the Facts: Reframing the

Mind", Education Next: 1924 PDF copy

26. Jump up^ Gardner, Howard (1998), "A Reply to Perry D. Klein's 'Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight'",Canadian Journal of Education 23 (1): 96102, doi:10.2307/1585968, JSTOR 1585790

27. Jump up^ Klein, Perry D. (1998), "A Response to Howard Gardner:

Falsifiability, Empirical Evidence, and Pedagogical Usefulness in Educational Psychologies", Canadian Journal of Education 23 (1): 103112,doi:10.2307/1585969

28. Jump up^ Demetriou, A.; Spanoudis, G.; Mouyi, A. (2011), Educating the Developing Mind: Towards an Overarching Paradigm, "Educating the Developing Mind: Towards an Overarching Paradigm", Educational Psychology Review 23 (4): 601663, doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9178-3

29. Jump up^ Demetriou & Raftopoulos 2005, p. 68

30. Jump up^ Demetriou, A.; Efklides, A.; Platsidou, M.; Campbell, Robert L.

(1993), "The architecture and dynamics of developing mind: Experiential structuralism as a frame for unifying cognitive developmental theories",Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 58 (234): i, doi:10.2307/1166053

31. Jump up^ Demetriou, A., Christou, C.; Spanoudis, G.; Platsidou, M.

(2002), "The development of mental processing: Efficiency, working memory, and thinking", Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development 67(268)

32. Jump up^ Demetriou, A.; Kazi, S. (2006), "Self-awareness in g (with processing efficiency and reasoning",Intelligence 34 (3): 297317, doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.10.002

33. Jump up^ Demetriou, Mouyi & Spanoudis 2010

34. ^ Jump up to:a b Kaufman 2009

35. Jump up^ Visser, Beth A.; Ashton, Michael C.; Vernon, Philip A.

(2006), "g and the measurement of Multiple Intelligences: A response to Gardner", Intelligence 34 (5): 507510, doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.04.006

36. Jump up^ Gottfredson, L. S. (2006), "Social Consequences of Group

Differences in Cognitive Ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva)", in Flores-Mendoza, C. E.; Colom, R., Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais, ArtMed Publishers, pp. 433456, ISBN 8536314184

37. ^ Jump up to:a b Gardner 2004, p. 214

38. ^ Jump up to:a b Waterhouse, Lynn (Fall 2006), "Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A critical review", Educational Psychologist 41 (4): 207225, doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1

39. Jump up^ Jones 2010, p. 35.

40. Jump up^ Gottfredson, Linda, "Intelligence", New Scientist, retrieved 13

November 2012

41. Jump up^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-

sheet/wp/2013/10/16/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles/

42. Jump up^ Gardner 2000, pp. 3334

43. Jump up^ Gardner 1993, p. 6

44. Jump up^ Helding, L. (2009), "Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences", Journal of Singing 66 (2): 193199


46. Jump up^ Traub, James (1998), "Multiple intelligence disorder", The New Republic 219 (17): 20


48. Jump up^ Eberstadt, Mary (OctoberNovember 1999), "The Schools They Deserve" (PDF), Policy Review

49. Jump up^ Jones 2010, p. 23

50. Jump up^ Davis et al. 2011, p. 486

51. Jump up^ Revell, Phil (31 May 2005), "Each to their own", Guardian,

retrieved 15 November 2012

Bibliography

Carroll, J. B. (1993), Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-analytic Studies, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521382750

Davis, Katie; Christodoulou, Joanna; Seider, Scott; Gardner, Howard (2011), "The Theory of Multiple Intelligences", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman,

Barry, The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 485503, ISBN 0521518067

Demetriou, Andreas; Raftopoulos, Athanassios (2005), Cognitive Developmental Change: Theories, Models and Measurement, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521825792

Demetriou, A.; Mouyi, A.; Spanoudis, G. (2010), "The development of mental processing", in Overton, W. F., The Handbook of Life-Span Development: Cognition, Biology and Methods, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 3655, ISBN 978-0-470-39011-5

Eysenck, M. W., ed. (1994), The Blackwell Dictionary of Cognitive Psychology, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 192193, ISBN 0631192573

Gardner, Howard (1993), Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice, Basic Books, ISBN 046501822X

Gardner, Howard (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, ISBN 0133306143

Gardner, Howard (2000), Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century, Basic Books, ISBN 978-0-465-02611-1

Gardner, H. (2004), Changing Minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people's minds, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN 1422103293

Jones, Paul Howard (2010), Introducing Neuroeducational Research, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 0415472008

Kaufman, Alan S. (2009), IQ Testing 101, Springer Publishing Company, ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2

Further reading[edit]

Kavale, Kenneth A.; Forness, Steven R. (1987), "Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching", Exceptional Children 54: 228239

Klein, Perry, D. (1997), "Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A critique of Gardner's theory", Canadian Journal of Education 22 (4): 377394, doi:10.2307/1585790

Kornhaber, Mindy (2004), "Psychometric Superiority? Check the Facts",

Fierros, Mindy (2003), "Multiple Intelligences: Best Ideas from Research and Practice",

Lohman, D. F. (2001), "Fluid intelligence, inductive reasoning, and working memory: Where the theory of Multiple Intelligences falls short" (PDF), in Colangelo, N.; Assouline, S., Talent Development IV: Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on talent development, Great Potential Press, pp. 219228, ISBN 978-0-910707-39-8

Kincheloe, Joe L.; Nolan, Kathleen; Progler, Yusef; Appelbaum, Peter; Cary, Richard; Blumenthal-Jones, Donald S.; Morris, Marla; Lemke, Jay L.; Cannella, Gaile S.; Weil, Danny; Berry, Kathleen S. (2004), Kincheloe, Joe L., ed., Multiple Intelligences Reconsidered, Counterpoints v. 278, Peter Lang, ISBN 978-0-8204-7098-6, ISSN 1058-1634, lay summary (4 September 2010)

Sempsey, James (1993), "The Pedagogical Implications Of Cognitive Science and Howard Gardner's M.I. Theory (A Critique)",

Sternberg, R. J. (1988), The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence, Penguin Books

Waterhouse, Lynn (Fall 2006), "Inadequate Evidence for Multiple Intelligences, Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence

Theories", Educational Psychologist 41 (4): 247255,doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4104_5

[hide]

V

T

E

Human intelligence topics

Types

Collective

Emotional

Intellectual

Linguistic

Multiple

Social

Spatial (visuospatial)

Abilities

Traits

Constructs

Cognition

Communication

Creativity

Fluid and crystallized intelligence

g factor

Intelligence quotient

Knowledge

Learning

Memory

Problem solving

Reasoning

Thought (abstraction)

Understanding

Visual processing

Models and theories

CattellHornCarroll theory


Multiple-intelligences theory

Three-stratum theory

Triarchic theory

PASS theory

Areas of research

Evolution of human intelligence

Heritability of IQ

Psychometrics

Intelligence and environment / health / longevity / neuroscience / race

Outline of human intelligence / thought

Categories:

Curricula

Education reform

Education theory

Psychological theories

Intelligence by type

Life skills

Navigation menu

Create account

Log in

Article

Talk Read

Edit View history

Go

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Wikimedia Shop Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact page Tools

What links here

Related changes

Upload file

Special pages

Permanent link

Page information

Wikidata item

Cite this page Print/export

Create a book

Download as PDF

Printable version Languages

Catal

Dansk

Deutsch

Eesti

Espaol

Esperanto

Euskara

Franais

slenska

Lietuvi

Magyar

Nederlands

Norsk bokml

Polski

Portugus

Slovenina

Suomi

Tagalog

Trke

Ting Vit

Edit links

This page was last modified on 16 August 2014 at 03:18.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms

may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is

a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Mobile view

Fluid and crystallized intelligence From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In psychology, fluid and crystallized intelligence (respectively abbreviated Gf and Gc) are factors of general intelligence, originally identified by Raymond Cattell.[1] Concepts of fluid and crystallized intelligence were further developed by John L. Horn, the primary student of Raymond Cattell.

Fluid intelligence or fluid reasoning is the capacity to think logically and solve problems in novel situations, independent of acquired knowledge. It is the ability to analyze novel problems, identify patterns and relationships that underpin these problems and the extrapolation of these using logic. It is necessary for all logical problem solving, e.g., in scientific, mathematical, and technical problem solving. Fluid reasoning includes inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Crystallized intelligence is the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. It does not equate to memory, but it does rely on accessing information from long-term memory. Crystallized intelligence is ones lifetime of intellectual achievement, as demonstrated largely through one's vocabulary and general knowledge. This improves somewhat with age, as experiences tend to expand one's knowledge.

The terms are somewhat misleading because one is not a "crystallized" form or the other. Rather, they are believed to be separate neural and mental systems. Crystallized intelligence is indicated by a person's depth and breadth of general knowledge, vocabulary, and the ability to reason using words and numbers. It is the product of educational and cultural experience in interaction with fluid intelligence.

Fluid and crystallized intelligence are thus correlated with each other, and most IQ tests attempt to measure both varieties. For example, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) measures fluid intelligence on the performance scale and crystallized intelligence on the verbal scale. The overall IQ score is based on a combination of these two scales.

Contents

[hide]

1 History

2 Theoretical development

o 2.1 Fluid versus crystallized

o 2.2 Factor structure

3 Measurement of fluid intelligence

4 Development and physiology

5 Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory

6 See also

7 References

History[edit]

Fluid and crystallized intelligence were originally identified by Raymond Cattell.[2] Concepts of fluid and crystallized intelligence were further developed by John L. Horn, the primary student of Raymond Cattell.

Theoretical development[edit]

Fluid and crystallized intelligence are discrete factors of general intelligence, or g.[3] Although formally recognized by Cattell, the distinction was foreshadowed by Charles Spearman who originally developed the theory of g and made a similar observation regarding the difference between eductive and reproductive mental ability.[citation needed]

According to Cattell, "...it is apparent that one of these powers has the 'fluid' quality of being directable to almost any problem. By contrast, the other is invested in particular areas of crystallized skills which can be upset individually without affecting the others."[3] Thus, his claim was that each type, or factor, was independent of the other, though many authors have noted an apparent interdependence of the two.[4]

Fluid versus crystallized[edit]

Fluid intelligence includes such abilities as pattern recognition, abstract reasoning, and problem-solving. Evidence is consistent with the view that Gf is more affected by brain injury.[5][6]

Deficits in fluid intelligence are found on some measures in individuals with Autism spectrum disorders, including Asperger syndrome, whereas enhanced performance on other tasks measuring fluid intelligence has been found in this population.[7][8][9]

Crystallized intelligence is possibly more amenable to change as it relies on specific, acquired knowledge. When learning new facts, someone's fund of knowledge is expanded. Vocabulary tests and the verbal subscale of the WAIS are considered good measures of Gc. Crystallized intelligence relates to the study of aging. Belsky claims this declines with age. In life, knowledge that is not used can be forgotten. Belsky believes forgetting exceeds the rate at which knowledge is acquired.[citation needed]

Not surprisingly, people with a high capacity of Gf tend to acquire more Gc knowledge and at faster rates. The process of acquiring factual knowledge is sometimes called "cognitive investment."[10]

Some researchers have linked the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence to Piaget's conception of operative intelligence and learning.[11][12] Fluid ability and Piaget's operative intelligence both concern logical thinking and the education of relations. Crystallized ability and Piaget's treatment of everyday learning reflect the impress of experience. Like fluid ability's relation to crystallized intelligence, Piaget's operativity is considered to be prior to, and ultimately provides the foundation for, everyday learning.

Factor structure[edit]

Fluid intelligence generally correlates with measures of abstract reasoning and puzzle solving. Crystallized intelligence correlates with abilities that depend on knowledge and experience, such as vocabulary, general information, and analogies. Paul Kline identified a number of factors that shared a

correlation of at least r=.60 with Gf and Gc.[13] Factors with median loadings [clarify] of greater than 0.6 on Gf

included induction, visualization, quantitative reasoning, and ideational fluency. Factors with median loadings of greater than 0.6 on Gc included verbal ability, language development, reading comprehension, sequential reasoning, and general information. It may be suggested that tests of intelligence may not be able to truly reflect levels of fluid intelligence. Some authors have suggested that unless an individual was truly interested in the problem presented, the cognitive work required may not be performed because of a lack of interest.[14] These authors contend that a low score on tests which are intended to measure fluid intelligence may reflect more a lack of interest in the tasks rather than inability to complete the tasks successfully.

Measurement of fluid intelligence[edit]

There are various measures that assess fluid intelligence. The Cattell Culture Fair IQ test, the Raven Progressive Matrices (RPM), and the performance subscale of the WAIS are measures of Gf. The RPM[15] is one of the most commonly used measures of fluid abilities. It is a non-verbal multiple choice test. Participants have to complete a series of drawings by identifying relevant features based on the spatial organization of an array of objects, and choosing one object that matches one or more of the identified features.[16] This task assesses the ability to consider one or more relationships between mental representations or relational reasoning. Propositional analogies and semantic decision tasks are also used to assess relational reasoning.[17][18]

Standardized IQ tests such as those used in psychoeducational assessment also include tests of fluid intelligence. In the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities,[19] Gf is assessed by two tests: Concept Formation (Test 5) in the Standard Battery and Analysis Synthesis (Test 15) in the Extended Battery. On Concept Formation tasks, the individual has to apply concepts by inferring the underlying "rules" for solving visual puzzles that are presented in increasing levels of difficulty. Individuals at the preschool level have to point to a shape that is different from others in a set. As the level of difficulty increases, individuals increasingly demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes a key difference (or the "rule") for solving puzzles involving one to one comparisons, and on later items identifying common differences among a set of items. For more difficult items, individuals need to understand the concept of "and" (e.g. solution must have some of this and some of that) and the concept of "or" (e.g. to be inside a box, the item must be either this or that). The most difficult items require fluid transformations and

cognitive shifting between the various types of concept puzzles that the examinee has worked with previously.[20]

Concept Formation tasks assess inductive reasoning ability. In the Analysis-Synthesis test, the individual has to learn and orally state the solutions to incomplete logic puzzles that mimic a miniature mathematics system. The test also contains some of the features involved in using symbolic formulations in other fields such as chemistry and logic. The individual is presented with a set of logic rules, a "key" that is used to solve the puzzles. The individual has to determine the missing colors within each of the puzzles using the key. Complex items present puzzles that require two or more sequential mental manipulations of the key to derive a final solution. Increasingly difficult items involve a mix of puzzles that require fluid shifts in deduction, logic, and inference.[20] Analysis Synthesis tasks assess general sequential reasoning.

In the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV (WISC IV),[21] the Perceptual Reasoning Index contains two subtests that assess Gf: Matrix Reasoning, which involves induction and deduction, and Picture Concepts, which involves induction.[22] In the Picture Concepts task, children are presented a series of pictures on two or three rows and asked which pictures (one from each row) belong together based on some common characteristic. This task assesses the child's ability to discover the underlying characteristic (e.g. rule, concept, trend, class membership) that governs a set of materials. Matrix Reasoning also tests this ability as well as the ability to start with stated rules, premises, or conditions and to engage in one or more steps to reach a solution to a novel problem (deduction). In the Matrix Reasoning test, children are presented a series or sequence of pictures with one picture missing. Their task is to choose the picture that fits the series or sequence from an array of five options. Since Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts involve the use of visual stimuli and do not require expressive language, they are considered to be non-verbal tests of Gf.[22]

Within the corporate environment, fluid intelligence is a predictor of a person's capacity to work well in environments characterised by complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity. The Cognitive Process Profile (CPP) measures a person's fluid intelligence and cognitive processes. It maps these against suitable work environments according to Elliott Jacques Stratified Systems Theory.

Development and physiology[edit]

Fluid intelligence, like reaction time, typically peaks in young adulthood and then steadily declines. This decline may be related to local atrophy of the brain in the right cerebellum.[23] Other researchers have suggested that a lack of practice, along with age-related changes in the brain may contribute to the decline.[4] Crystallized intelligence typically increases gradually, stays relatively stable across most of adulthood, and then begins to decline after age 65.[4] The exact peak age of cognitive skills remains elusive, it depends on the skill measurement as well as on the survey design. Cross-sectional data shows typically an earlier onset of cognitive decline in comparison with longitudinal data. The former may be confounded due to cohort effects while the latter may be biased due to prior test experiences.[24]

Working memory capacity is closely related to fluid intelligence, and has been proposed to account for individual differences in Gf.[25] Furthermore, recent research suggests that cognitive exercise can increase working memory and also improve Gf.

Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory[edit]

According to David Geary, Gf and Gc can be traced to two separate brain systems. Fluid intelligence involves both the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and other systems related to attention and short-term memory. Crystallized intelligence appears to be a function of brain regions that involve the storage and usage of long-term memories, such as the hippocampus.[26]

In a controversial study, Susanne M. Jaeggi and her colleagues at the University of Michigan, found that healthy young adults who practiced a demanding working memory task (dual n-back) approximately 25 minutes per day for between 8 and 19 days, had statistically significant increases in their scores on a matrix test of fluid intelligence taken before and after the training than a control group who did not do any training at all.[27]

A second study conducted at the University of Technology in Hangzhou, China, supports Jaeggi's results independently. After student subjects were given a 10 day training regimen based on the dual n-back working memory theory, the students were tested on Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. Their scores were found to have increased significantly.[28]

Subsequent studies, namely by Chooi & Thompson[29] and Redick et al.[30] do not support Jaeggi's claims. Although participants' performance on the training task improved, results from latter did not suggest any significant improvement in the mental abilities tested, especially fluid intelligence and working memory capacity. The meta-analytic review concluded that "memory training programs appear to produce short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize."[31]

See also[edit]

Outline of human intelligence

Raymond Cattell

CHC theory

General intelligence factor

Intelligence

Three stratum theory

References[edit]

1. Jump up^ Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and

action. New York: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-04275-5.

2. Jump up^ Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and

action. New York: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-04275-5.[page needed]

3. ^ Jump up to:a b Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. New York: Elsevier Science.[page needed]

4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Cavanaugh, J. C.; Blanchard-Fields, F (2006). Adult development and aging (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing/Thomson Learning. ISBN 0-534-52066-9.[page needed]

5. Jump up^ Cattell, Raymond B. (1963). "Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment". Journal of Educational Psychology54:

122. doi:10.1037/h0046743.

6. Jump up^ Suchy, Yana; Eastvold, Angela; Whittaker, Wilson J.;

Strassberg, Donald (2007). "Validation of the Behavioral Dyscontrol Scale-Electronic Version: Sensitivity to subtle sequelae of mild traumatic brain injury". Brain Injury 21 (1): 6980.doi:10.1080/02699050601149088. PMID 17364522.

7. Jump up^ Hayashi, Mika; Kato, Motoichiro; Igarashi, Kazue; Kashima,

Haruo (2008). "Superior fluid intelligence in children with Asperger's disorder". Brain and Cognition 66 (3): 30610.doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2007.09.008. PMID 17980944.

8. Jump up^ Soulires, Isabelle; Dawson, Michelle; Gernsbacher, Morton

Ann; Mottron, Laurent (2011). "The Level and Nature of Autistic Intelligence II: What about Asperger Syndrome?". In Skoulakis, Efthimios M. C.PLoS ONE 6 (9):

e25372. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...625372S.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025372. PMC 3182210.PMID 21991394.

9. Jump up^ Dawson, M.; Soulieres, I.; Ann Gernsbacher, M.; Mottron, L. (2007). "The Level and Nature of Autistic Intelligence". Psychological Science18 (8): 65762. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01954.x.PMID 17680932.

10. Jump up^ Ackerman, Phillip L. (1996). "A theory of adult intellectual

development: Process, personality, interests, and

knowledge".Intelligence 22 (2): 22757. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1.

11. Jump up^ Papalia, D.; Fitzgerald, J.; Hooper, F. H. (1971). "Piagetian

Theory and the Aging Process: Extensions and Speculations". The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 2: 320.doi:10.2190/AG.2.1.b.

12. Jump up^ Schonfeld, Irvin S. (1986). "The Genevan and Cattell-Horn

conceptions of intelligence compared: Early implementation of numerical solution aids". Developmental Psychology 22 (2): 20412.doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.2.204.

13. Jump up^ Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology

and measurement. London: Routledge.[page needed]

14. Jump up^ Messick, Samuel (1989). "Meaning and Values in Test Validation: The Science and Ethics of Assessment". Educational Researcher 18(2): 511. doi:10.3102/0013189X018002005. JSTOR 1175249.

15. Jump up^ Raven, J.; Raven, J. C.; Court, J. H. (2003) [1998]. "Section 1: General Overview". Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.[page needed]

16. Jump up^ Bornstein, Joel C.; Foong, Jaime Pei Pei

(2009). "MGluR1 Receptors Contribute to Non-Purinergic Slow Excitatory Transmission to Submucosal VIP Neurons of Guinea-Pig Ileum". Frontiers in Neuroscience 3:

46. doi:10.3389/neuro.21.001.2009.PMC 2695390. PMID 20582273.

17. Jump up^ Wright, Samantha B.; Matlen, Bryan J.; Baym, Carol L.; Ferrer,

Emilio; Bunge, Silvia A. (2007). "Neural correlates of fluid reasoning in children and adults". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 1:

8.doi:10.3389/neuro.09.008.2007. PMC 2525981.PMID 18958222.

18. Jump up^ Ferrer, Emilio; O'Hare, Elizabeth D.; Bunge, Silvia A. (2009). "Fluid reasoning and the developing brain". Frontiers in Neuroscience 3(1): 4651. doi:10.3389/neuro.01.003.2009. PMC 2858618.PMID 19753096.

19. Jump up^ Woodcock, R. W.; McGrew, K. S.; Mather, N (2001). Woodcock Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.[page needed]

20. ^ Jump up to:a b Schrank, F. A.; Flanagan, D. P. (2003). WJ III Clinical use and interpretation. Scientist-practitioner perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.[page needed]

21. Jump up^ Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.[page needed]

22. ^ Jump up to:a b Flanagan, D. P.; Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.[page needed]

23. Jump up^ Lee, Jun-Young; Lyoo, In Kyoon; Kim, Seon-Uk; Jang, Hong-

Suk; Lee, Dong-Woo; Jeon, Hong-Jin; Park, Sang-Chul; Cho, Maeng Je (2005). "Intellect declines in healthy elderly subjects and cerebellum".Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 59 (1): 4551.doi:10.1111/j.1440-1819.2005.01330.x. PMID 15679539.hdl:10371/27902.

24. Jump up^ Desjardins, Richard; Warnke, Arne Jonas (2012). Ageing and

Skills. OECD Education Working Papers. doi:10.1787/5k9csvw87ckh-en.

25. Jump up^ Kyllonen, Patrick C.; Christal, Raymond E. (1990). "Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?!". Intelligence 14 (4):

389433. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(05)80012-1.

26. Jump up^ Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.[page needed]

27. Jump up^ Jaeggi, Susanne M.; Buschkuehl, Martin; Jonides, John;

Perrig, Walter J. (2008). "Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(19): 6829

33. Bibcode:2008PNAS..105.6829J.doi:10.1073/pnas.0801268105. JSTOR 25461885.PMC 2383929. PMID 18443283.

28. Jump up^ Qiu, Feiyue; Wei, Qinqin; Zhao, Liying; Lin, Lifang (2009).

"Study on Improving Fluid Intelligence through Cognitive Training System Based on Gabor Stimulus". 2009 First International Conference on Information Science and Engineering. pp. 345962.doi:10.1109/ICISE.2009.1124. ISBN 978-1-4244-4909-5.

29. Jump up^ Chooi, Weng-Tink; Thompson, Lee A. (2012). "Working

memory training does not improve intelligence in healthy young adults".Intelligence 40 (6): 53142. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.07.004.

30. Jump up^ Redick, Thomas S.; Shipstead, Zach; Harrison, Tyler L.; Hicks,

Kenny L.; Fried, David E.; Hambrick, David Z.; Kane, Michael J.; Engle, Randall W. (2012). "No Evidence of Intelligence Improvement After Working Memory Training: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study".Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.doi:10.1037/a0029082. PMID 22708717.

31. Jump up^ Melby-Lervg, Monica; Hulme, Charles (2012). "Is Working Memory Training Effective? A Meta-Analytic Review". Developmental Psychology 49 (2): 27091. doi:10.1037/a0028228.PMID 22612437.

[hide]

V

T

E


Types

Collective

Emotional

Intellectual

Linguistic

Multiple

Social

Spatial (visuospatial)

Abilities

Traits

Constructs

Cognition

Communication

Creativity


g factor

Intelligence quotient

Knowledge

Learning

Memory

Problem solving

Reasoning

Thought (abstraction)

Understanding

Visual processing

Models and theories

CattellHornCarroll theory


Multiple-intelligences theory

Three-stratum theory

Triarchic theory

PASS theory

Areas of research

Evolution of human intelligence

Heritability of IQ

Psychometrics

Intelligence and environment / health / longevity / neuroscience / race

Outline of human intelligence / thought

Categories:

Intelligence by type

Creativity

Intelligence

Navigation menu

Create account

Log in

Article

Talk Read

Edit View history

Go

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia


Help

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact page Tools

What links here

Related changes

Upload file

Special pages

Permanent link

Page information

Wikidata item


Create a book

Download as PDF


Catal

Deutsch

Hrvatski

Italiano

Suomi

Svenska

Edit links

This page was last modified on 28 July 2014 at 13:17.




Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Mobile view

Intelligence From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Intelligence (disambiguation).

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge,memory, planning, creativity and problem solving.

Intelligence is most widely studied in humans, but has also been observed in animals and in plants. Artificial intelligence is the simulation of intelligence in machines.

Within the discipline of psychology, various approaches to human intelligence have been adopted. The psychometric approach is especially familiar to the general public, as well as being the most researched and by far the most widely used in practical settings.[1]

Contents

[hide]

1 History of the term

2 Definitions

3 Human intelligence

4 Animal and plant intelligence

5 Artificial intelligence

6 See also

7 References

8 Further reading

9 External links

History of the term[edit] Main article: Nous

Intelligence derives from the Latin verb intelligere, to comprehend or perceive. A form of this verb, intellectus, became the medieval technical term for understanding, and a translation for the Greek philosophical term nous. This term was however strongly linked to the metaphysical and cosmological theories of teleological scholasticism, including theories of the immortality of the soul, and the concept of the Active Intellect (also known as the Active Intelligence). This entire approach to the study of nature was strongly rejected by the early modern philosophers such as Francis Bacon,Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and David Hume, all of whom preferred the word "understanding" in their English philosophical works.[2][3] Hobbes for example, in his Latin De Corpore, used "intellectus intelligit" (translated in the English version as "the understanding understandeth") as a typical example of a logical absurdity.[4] The term "intelligence" has therefore become less common in English language philosophy, but it has later been taken up (with the scholastic theories which it now implies) in more contemporary psychology.

Definitions[edit]

The definition of intelligence is controversial. Some groups of psychologists have suggested the following definitions:

1. From "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:

A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]

2. From "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]

Besides those definitions, psychology and learning researchers also have suggested definitions of intelligence such as:

Researcher Quotation

Alfred Binet Judgment, otherwise called "good sense," "practical sense," "initiative," the

faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique.[8]

David Wechsler The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think

rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.[9]

Lloyd Humphreys

"...the resultant of the process of acquiring, storing in memory, retrieving,

combining, comparing, and using in new contexts information and conceptual

skills."[10]

Cyril Burt Innate general cognitive ability[11]

Howard Gardner

To my mind, a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills

of problem solving enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to create an

effective product and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems and thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge.[12]

Linda Gottfredson The ability to deal with cognitive complexity.[13]

Sternberg & Salter Goal-directed adaptive behavior.[14]

Reuven Feuerstein

The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the

unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their

cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."[15]

Charles Spearman

"...all branches of intellectual activity have in common one fundamental

function, whereas the remaining or specific elements of the activity seem in

every case to be wholly different from that in all the others."[16]

What is considered intelligent varies with culture. For example, when asked to sort, the Kpelle people take a functional approach. A Kpelle participant stated "the knife goes with the orange because it cuts it." When asked how a fool would sort, they sorted linguistically, putting the knife with other implements and the orange with other foods, which is the style considered intelligent in other cultures.[17]

Human intelligence[edit] Main article: Human intelligence

Human intelligence is the intellectual capacity of humans, which is characterized by perception, consciousness, self-awareness, and volition. Through their intelligence humans possess the cognitiveabilities to learn, form concepts, understand, and reason, including the capacities to recognize patterns, comprehend ideas, plan, problem solve, and use language to communicate. Intelligence enables humans to experience and think.

Animal and plant intelligence[edit] Main articles: Animal cognition and Plant intelligence

The common chimpanzee can use tools. This chimpanzee is using a stick to get food.

Although humans have been the primary focus of intelligence researchers, scientists have also attempted to investigate animal intelligence, or more broadly, animal cognition. These researchers are interested in studying both mental ability in a particular species, and comparing abilities between species. They study various measures of problem solving, as well as numerical and verbal reasoning abilities. Some challenges in this area are defining intelligence so that it has the same meaning across species (e.g.

comparing intelligence between literate humans and illiterate animals), and alsooperationalizing a measure that accurately compares mental ability across different species and contexts.

Wolfgang Khler's pioneering research on the intelligence of apes is a classic example of research in this area. Stanley Coren's book, The Intelligence of Dogs[unreliable source?] is a notable popular book on the topic.[18] (See also: Dog intelligence.) Non-human animals particularly noted and studied for their intelligence include chimpanzees, bonobos (notably the language-using Kanzi) and other great apes, dolphins, elephants and to some extent parrots, ratsand ravens.

Cephalopod intelligence also provides important comparative study. Cephalopods appear to exhibit characteristics of significant intelligence, yet theirnervous systems differ radically from those of backboned animals. Vertebrates such as mammals, birds, reptiles and fish have shown a fairly high degree of intellect that varies according to each species. The same is true with arthropods.

It has been argued that plants should also be classified as being in some sense intelligent based on their ability to sense the environment and adjust their morphology, physiology and phenotypeaccordingly.[19][20]

Artificial intelligence[edit] Main article: Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (or AI) is both the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science which aims to create it, through "the study and design of intelligent agents"[21] or "rational agents", where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success.[22] Achievements in artificial intelligence include constrained and well-defined problems such as games, crossword-solving and optical character recognition and a few more general problems such as autonomous cars.[23] General intelligence or strong AI has not yet been achieved and is a long-term goal of AI research.

Among the traits that researchers hope machines will exhibit are reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception, and the ability to move and manipulate objects.[21][22] In the field of artificial intelligence there is no consensus on how closely the brain should be simulated.

See also[edit]

Thinking portal

Logic portal

Psychology portal

Active intellect

Intelligence (journal)

Knowledge

Neuroscience and intelligence

Passive intellect

References[edit]

1. Jump up^ Neisser, U.; Boodoo, G.; Bouchard, T. J. , J.; Boykin, A. W.;

Brody, N.; Ceci, S. J.; Halpern, D. F.; Loehlin, J. C.; Perloff, R.; Sternberg, R. J.; Urbina, S. (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns". American Psychologist 51 (2): 77. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77. edit Article in

Wikipedia: Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns

2. Jump up^ Martinich, Aloysius (1995). A Hobbes Dictionary. Blackwell.

p. 305

3. Jump up^ Nidditch, Peter. "Foreword". An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press. p. xxii

4. Jump up^ English, and Latin version.

5. Jump up^ Gottfredson, Linda S. (1997). "Mainstream Science on Intelligence (editorial)". Intelligence 24: 1323. doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(97)90011-8. ISSN 0160-2896.

6. Jump up^ Neisser, U.; Boodoo, G.; Bouchard Jr, T.J.; Boykin, A.W.;

Brody, N.; Ceci, S.J.; Halpern, D.F.; Loehlin, J.C.; Perloff, R.; Sternberg, R.J.; Others, (1998). "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development 1997. ISBN 978-0-87630-870-7. Retrieved 2008-03-18.

7. Jump up^ Neisser, Ulrich; Boodoo, Gwyneth; Bouchard, Thomas J.;

Boykin, A. Wade; Brody, Nathan; Ceci, Stephen J.; Halpern, Diane F.; Loehlin, John C.; Perloff, Robert; Sternberg, Robert J.; Urbina, Susana (1996)."Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns". American Psychologist 51:

77101. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.51.2.77. ISSN 0003-066X. Retrieved 22 July 2013.

8. Jump up^ Binet, Alfred (1916) [1905]. "New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals". The development of intelligence in children: The Binet-Simon Scale. E.S. Kite (Trans.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. pp. 3790. Retrieved 10 July 2010. "originally published as Mthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux. L'Anne Psychologique, 11, 191-244"

9. Jump up^ Wechsler, D (1944). The measurement of adult intelligence.

Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-19-502296-3. OCLC 219871557 5950992. ASIN = B000UG9J7E

10. Jump up^ Humphreys, L. G. (1979). "The construct of general intelligence".Intelligence 3 (2): 105120. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(79)90009-6.

11. Jump up^ Burt, C. (1931). "The Differentiation Of Intellectual Ability". The British Journal of Educational Psychology.

12. Jump up^ Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New

York: Basic Books. 1993. ISBN 0-465-02510-2. OCLC 221932479 27749478 32820474 56327755 9732290.

13. Jump up^ Gottfredson, L. (1998). "The General Intelligence Factor" (pdf).Scientific American Presents 9 (4): 2429. Retrieved 2008-03-18.

14. Jump up^ Sternberg RJ; Salter W (1982). Handbook of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-29687-0.OCLC 11226466 38083152 8170650.

15. Jump up^ Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, S., Falik, L & Rand, Y. (1979;

2002). Dynamic assessments of cognitive modifiability. ICELP Press, Jerusalem: Israel; Feuerstein, R. (1990). The theory of structural modifiability. In B. Presseisen (Ed.), Learning and thinking styles: Classroom interaction. Washington, DC: National Education Associations

16. Jump up^ Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201293. (K. R-26)

17. Jump up^ Glick (1975) reported in Resnick, L. (1976). The Nature of

Intelligence. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

18. Jump up^ Coren, Stanley (1995). The Intelligence of Dogs. Bantam

Books.ISBN 0-553-37452-4. OCLC 30700778.

19. Jump up^ Trewavas, Anthony (September 2005). "Green plants as intelligent organisms". Trends in Plant Science 10 (9): 413419.doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2005.07.005. PMID 16054860.

20. Jump up^ Trewavas, A. (2002). "Mindless mastery". Nature 415 (6874):

841.doi:10.1038/415841a. PMID 11859344. edit

21. ^ Jump up to:a b Goebel, Randy; Poole, David L.; Mackworth, Alan K. (1997).Computational intelligence: A logical approach (pdf). Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 0-19-510270-3.

22. ^ Jump up to:a b Canny, John; Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-790395-2. OCLC 51325314 60211434 61259102.

23. Jump up^ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520746/data-shows-

googles-robot-cars-are-smoother-safer-drivers-than-you-or-i/

Further reading[edit] Books listed in chronological order of publication

Binet, Alfred; Simon, Th. (1916). The development of intelligence in children: The Binet-Simon Scale. Publications of the Training School at Vineland New Jersey Department of Research No. 11. E. S. Kite (Trans.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Retrieved 18 July 2010.

Terman, Lewis Madison; Merrill, Maude A. (1937). Measuring intelligence: A guide to the administration of the new revised Stanford-Binet tests of intelligence. Riverside textbooks in education. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin. OCLC 964301.

Wolman, Benjamin B., ed. (1985). Handbook of Intelligence. consulting editors: Douglas K. Detterman, Alan S. Kaufman, Joseph D. Matarazzo. New York (NY): Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-89738-5.This handbook includes chapters by Paul B. Baltes, Ann E. Boehm, Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., Nathan Brody, Valerie J. Cook, Roger A. Dixon, Gerald E. Gruen, J. P. Guilford, David O. Herman, John L. Horn, Lloyd G. Humphreys, George W. Hynd, Randy W. Kamphaus, Robert M. Kaplan, Alan S. Kaufman, Nadeen L. Kaufman, Deirdre A. Kramer, Roger T. Lennon, Michael Lewis, Joseph D. Matarazzo, Damian McShane, Mary N. Meeker, Kazuo Nihira, Thomas Oakland, Ronald Parmelee, Cecil R. Reynolds, Nancy L. Segal, Robert J. Sternberg, Margaret Wolan Sullivan, Steven G. Vandenberg, George P. Vogler, W. Grant Willis, Benjamin B. Wolman, James W. Soo-Sam, and Irla Lee Zimmerman.

Bock, Gregory; Goode, Jamie; Webb, Kate, eds. (2000). The Nature of Intelligence. Novartis Foundation Symposium 233. Chichester: Wiley. doi:10.1002/0470870850. ISBN 978-0471494348. Retrieved 16 July 2010. Lay summary (16 May 2013).

Blakeslee, Sandra; Hawkins, Jeff (2004). On intelligence. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8050-7456-2. OCLC 55510125.

Stanovich, Keith (2009). What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12385-2. Lay summary (6 November 2013).

Flynn, James R. (2009). What Is Intelligence: Beyond the Flynn Effect (expanded paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-74147-7. Lay summary (18 July 2010).

Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence (second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-958559-5. Lay summary (9 February 2012).

Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry, eds. (2011). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521739115. Lay summary (22 July 2013). The Cambridge Handbook includes chapters by N. J. Mackintosh, Susana Urbina, John O. Willis, Ron Dumont, Alan S. Kaufman, Janet E. Davidson, Iris A. Kemp, Samuel D. Mandelman, Elena L. Grigorenko, Raymond S. Nickerson, Joseph F. Fagan, L.

Todd Rose, Kurt Fischer, Christopher Hertzog, Robert M. Hodapp, Megan M. Griffin, Meghan M. Burke, Marisa H. Fisher, David Henry Feldman, Martha J. Morelock, Sally M. Reis, Joseph S. Renzulli, Diane F. Halpern, Anna S. Beninger, Carli A. Straight, Lisa A. Suzuki, Ellen L. Short, Christina S. Lee, Christine E. Daley, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Thomas R. Zentall, Liane Gabora, Anne Russon, Richard J. Haier, Ted Nettelbeck, Andrew R. A. Conway, Sarah Getz, Brooke Macnamara, Pascale M. J. Engel de Abreu, David F. Lohman, Joni M. Lakin, Keith E. Stanovich, Richard F. West, Maggie E. Toplak, Scott Barry Kaufman, Ashok K. Goel, Jim Davies, Katie Davis, Joanna Christodoulou, Scott Seider, Howard Gardner, Robert J. Sternberg, John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey, David Caruso, Lillia Cherkasskiy, Richard K. Wagner, John F. Kihlstrom, Nancy Cantor, Soon Ang, Linn Van Dyne, Mei Ling Tan, Glenn Geher, Weihua Niu, Jillian Brass, James R. Flynn, Susan M. Barnett, Heiner Rindermann, Wendy M. Williams, Stephen J. Ceci, Ian J. Deary, G. David Batty, Colin DeYoung, Richard E. Mayer, Priyanka B. Carr, Carol S. Dweck, James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, Ursula M. Staudinger, Judith Glck, Phillip L. Ackerman, and Earl Hunt.

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has

media related

to Intelligence.

Look up intelligence in

Wiktionary, the free

dictionary.

Wikiquote has quotations

related to: Intelligence

Intelligence on In Our Time at the BBC. (listen now)

APA Task Force Examines the Knowns and Unknowns of Intelligence - American Psychologist, February 1996

The cognitive-psychology approach vs. psychometric approach to intelligence - American Scientist magazine

History of Influences in the Development of Intelligence Theory and Testing - Developed by Jonathan Plucker at Indiana University

The Limits of Intelligence: The laws of physics may well prevent the human brain from evolving into an ever more powerful thinking machine by Douglas Fox in Scientific American, June 14, 2011.

A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence

Scholarly journals and societies

Intelligence (journal homepage)

International Society for Intelligence Research (homepage)

[show]

V

T

E

Philosophy of mind

[show]

V

T

E


Categories:

Intelligence

Educational psychology

Developmental psychology

Psychological testing

Navigation menu

Create account

Log in

Article Talk

Read Edit

View history

Go

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia


Help

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact page Tools

What links here

Related changes

Upload file

Special pages

Permanent link

Page information

Wikidata item


Create a book

Download as PDF


Azrbaycanca

Bosanski

Catal

etina

ChiShona

Dansk

Deutsch

Eesti

Espaol

Esperanto

Euskara

Franais

Galego

Hrvatski

Ido

Bahasa Indonesia

Interlingua

Italiano

Kiswahili

Latina

Latvieu

Lietuvi

Magyar

Bahasa Melayu

Nederlands

Norsk bokml

Occitan

Polski

Portugus

Romn

Shqip

Sicilianu

Simple English

Slovenina

/ srpski

Srpskohrvatski /

Suomi

Svenska

Tagalog

/tatara

Trke

Vneto

Ting Vit

Edit links

This page was last modified on 26 August 2014 at 17:11.




Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Mobile view

StanfordBinet Intelligence Scales From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

StanfordBinet Intelligence scales

Diagnostics

ICD-9-CM 94.01

MeSH D013195

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is an individually administered intelligence test that was revised from the original Binet-Simon Scale by Lewis M. Terman, a psychologist at Stanford University. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is now in its Fifth Edition. It is a cognitive ability and intelligence test that is used to diagnose developmental or intellectual deficiencies in young children. The test measures five weighted factors and consists of both verbal and nonverbal subtests. The five factors being tested are knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, working memory, and fluid reasoning.

The development of the StanfordBinet Intelligence Scales initiated the modern field of intelligence testing and was one of the first examples of an adaptive test. The test originated in France, then was revised in the United States. It was initially created by the French psychologist Alfred Binet, who---following the introduction of a law mandating universal education by the French government---undertook to develop a method of identifying "slow" children for their placement in special education programs (rather than removing them to asylums as "sick").[1] As Binet indicated, case studies might be more detailed and helpful, but the time required to test many people would be excessive. In 1916, at Stanford University, the psychologist Lewis Terman released a revised examination which became known as the "StanfordBinet test".

Contents

[hide]

1 Development

o 1.1 Historical Use

2 Revisions of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

o 2.1 Timeline

3 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fifth Edition

o 3.1 Reliability

o 3.2 Validity

o 3.3 Score classification

4 Present use

5 See also

6 References

7 Further reading

Development[edit]

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence scale is a modified version of the Binet-Simon Intelligence scale. The Binet-Simon scale was created by the French psychologist Alfred Binet and his student Theodore Simon (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). Due to changing education laws of the time, Binet had been requested by a government commission to come up with a way to detect children with significantly below-average intelligence and mental retardation (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012).

To create their test, Binet and Simon first created a baseline of intelligence (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). A wide range of children were tested on a wide range of measures in an effort to discover a clear indicator of intelligence (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). Failing to find a single identifier of intelligence, children were instead compared in each category by age (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). The childrens highest levels of achievement were sorted by age and common levels of achievements considered the normal level for that age (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). Because this testing method merely compares a person's ability to the common ability level of others their age, the general practices of the test can easily be transferred to test different populations, even if the measures used are changed (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012).

Reproduction of an item from the 1908 Binet-Simon intelligence scale, showing three pairs of pictures, about which

the tested child was asked, "Which of these two faces is the prettier?" Reproduced from the article "A Practical Guide

for Administering the Binet-Simon Scale for Measuring Intelligence" by J. W. Wallace Wallin in the March 1911 issue

of the journal The Psychological Clinic (volume 5 number 1), public domain.

One of the first successful intelligence tests the Binet-Simon test quickly gained support in the psychological community, many of which further spread it to the public (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). Lewis M. Terman. Terman, a psychologist at Stanford University, was one of the first to create a version of the test for people in the United States, naming the localized version the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012) (Becker, 2003). Terman used the test not only to help identify children with learning difficulties but to also find children and adults who had above average levels of intelligence (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). In creating his version, Terman also tested additional methods for his Stanford revision, publishing his first official version as The Measurement of Intelligence: An

Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale (Becker, 2003).

The original tests in the 1905 form include:

1. "Le Regard"

2. Prehension Provoked by a Tactile Stimulus

3. Prehension Provoked by a Visual Perception

4. Recognition of Food

5. Quest of Food Complicated by a Slight Mechanical Difficulty

6. Execution of Simple Commands and Imitation of Simple Gestures

7. Verbal Knowledge of Objects

8. Verbal Knowledge of Pictures

9. Naming of Designated Objects

10. Immediate Comparison of Two Lines of Unequal Lengths

11. Repetition of Three Figures

12. Comparison of Two Weights

13. Suggestibility

14. Verbal Definition of Known Objects

15. Repetition of Sentences of Fifteen Words

16. Comparison of Known Objects from Memory

17. Exercise of Memory on Pictures

18. Drawing a Design from Memory

19. Immediate Repetition of Figures

20. Resemblances of Several Known Objects Given from Memory

21. Comparison of Lengths

22. Five Weights to be Placed in Order

23. Gap in Weights

24. Exercise upon Rhymes

25. Verbal Gaps to be Filled

26. Synthesis of Three Words in One Sentence

27. Reply to an Abstract Question

28. Reversal of the Hands of a Clock

29. Paper Cutting

30. Definitions of Abstract Terms

Historical Use[edit]

One hindrance to widespread understanding of the test is its use of a variety of different measures. In an effort to simplify the information gained from the Binet-Simon test into a more comprehensible and easier to understand form, German psychologist William Stern created the now well known Intelligence Quotient (IQ)(Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). By comparing the age a child scored at to their biological age, a ratio is created to show the rate of their mental progress as IQ (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). Terman quickly grasped the idea for his Stanford revision with the adjustment of multiplying the ratios by 100 to make them easier to read (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012).

Terman was also one of the main forces in spreading intelligence testing in the United States (Francher & Rutherford, 2012)(Becker, 2003)(Leslie, 2000). Terman quickly promoted the use of the Stanford-Binet for schools across the United States where it saw a high rate of acceptance (Leslie, 2000). Termans work also had the attention of the U.S. government, who recruited him to apply the ideas from his Stanford-Binet test for military recruitment near the start of World War I (Leslie, 2000)(Fancher & Rutherford 2012). With over 1.7 million military recruits taking a version of the test and the acceptance of the test by the government, the Stanford-Binet saw an increase in awareness and acceptance (Leslie, 2000).

Given the perceived importance of intelligence and with new ways to measure intelligence, many influential individuals, including Terman, began promoting controversial ideas to increase the nation's overall intelligence (Leslie, 2000). These ideas included things such as discouraging individuals with low IQ from having children and granting important positions based on high IQ scores (Leslie, 2000). While there was much strong opposition, many institutions proceeded to adjust student's education based on their IQ scores, often with a heavy influence on future career possibilities (Leslie, 2000).

Revisions of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale[edit]

Since the first publication in

Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Documents

Transcript of Theory of Multiple Intelligences