Social LearningSocial Learning

Acquisition of social information and behavior.

Learning how to do something by watching or being instructed by someone else.

Acquisition of social information and behavior.

Learning how to do something by watching or being instructed by someone else.

Children’s Intentional Understanding

Children’s Intentional Understanding

Children understand that behavior is goal directed and are adept at perceiving others’ intentions.

This ability develops very early in life. Can differentiate unwilling from unable actions by 9 months. Can differentiate intentional and accidental actions by at least 14

months. Interpret adult gestures as intentional, communicative acts,

beginning in 2nd year. In most forms of social learning, children use their

understanding of others’ intentions to guide their decisions about which actions to copy.

Children understand that behavior is goal directed and are adept at perceiving others’ intentions.

This ability develops very early in life. Can differentiate unwilling from unable actions by 9 months. Can differentiate intentional and accidental actions by at least 14

months. Interpret adult gestures as intentional, communicative acts,

beginning in 2nd year. In most forms of social learning, children use their

understanding of others’ intentions to guide their decisions about which actions to copy.

Three Sources of Information In Social Learning

Goals (Intentions) (“desired end”) Actions (“means”) Result (“actual end”)

Different forms of social learning Different forms of social learning

Mimicry The duplication of a behavior without any understanding of the goal of

that behavior. Example: A 2-year-old child steps on a scale, looks at the scale face,

and steps off, just like Dad does. Same behavior, but goal is not understood

Mimicry The duplication of a behavior without any understanding of the goal of

that behavior. Example: A 2-year-old child steps on a scale, looks at the scale face,

and steps off, just like Dad does. Same behavior, but goal is not understood

Different forms of social learning Different forms of social learning Emulation One individual observes another interacting with an object and attends to the end result. The first

individual then interacts with the object attempting to attain the same end but does not duplicate the same behavior (means) as the model to achieve that end.

Example: A child watches someone sifting sand through her fingers to reveal seashells, then tosses sand in the air to find seashells.

Different means are used to achieve same end - goal is not understood

Goal Emulation Reproduction of a specific goal using behaviors that were not observed. This requires an

understanding of the goal that the model had in mind, but the means used to achieve that goal are different.

Example: Child watches an adult open a latch and push a button to open a box to get a piece of candy. Child understands adult’s goal, but only uses the latch to achieve the same goal.

Different means are used to achieve same end - goal is understood Imitation Reproduction of observed behavior to achieve a specific goal. This requires an understanding of the

goal that the model had in mind, as well as the reproduction of important components of the observed behavior.

Example: Child watches an adult open a latch and push a button to open a box to get a piece of candy. Child understands adult’s goal and repeats same actions with the same result.

Same means are used to achieve same end - goal is understood

Emulation One individual observes another interacting with an object and attends to the end result. The first

individual then interacts with the object attempting to attain the same end but does not duplicate the same behavior (means) as the model to achieve that end.

Example: A child watches someone sifting sand through her fingers to reveal seashells, then tosses sand in the air to find seashells.

Different means are used to achieve same end - goal is not understood

Goal Emulation Reproduction of a specific goal using behaviors that were not observed. This requires an

understanding of the goal that the model had in mind, but the means used to achieve that goal are different.

Example: Child watches an adult open a latch and push a button to open a box to get a piece of candy. Child understands adult’s goal, but only uses the latch to achieve the same goal.

Different means are used to achieve same end - goal is understood Imitation Reproduction of observed behavior to achieve a specific goal. This requires an understanding of the

goal that the model had in mind, as well as the reproduction of important components of the observed behavior.

Example: Child watches an adult open a latch and push a button to open a box to get a piece of candy. Child understands adult’s goal and repeats same actions with the same result.

Same means are used to achieve same end - goal is understood

Horner & Whiten (2005) Goal: retrieve food from within box

Irrelevant action: insert tool into top hole (inner barrier) Relevant action: insert tool into front hole

Both Irrelevant and Relevant actions modeled Some children see demonstration with clear box (causal structure

observable), some with opaque box (causal structure unobservable)

Horner & Whiten (2005) Goal: retrieve food from within box

Irrelevant action: insert tool into top hole (inner barrier) Relevant action: insert tool into front hole

Both Irrelevant and Relevant actions modeled Some children see demonstration with clear box (causal structure

observable), some with opaque box (causal structure unobservable)

Horner & Whiten (2005) Regardless of whether the box was clear or opaque, children

copied the Irrelevant action in addition to the Relevant action. Imitation

Chimpanzees copied both actions when the box was opaque, but only copied the Relevant action when the box was clear. Emulation (or Goal Emulation)

Horner & Whiten (2005) Regardless of whether the box was clear or opaque, children

copied the Irrelevant action in addition to the Relevant action. Imitation

Chimpanzees copied both actions when the box was opaque, but only copied the Relevant action when the box was clear. Emulation (or Goal Emulation)

Development of Social LearningDevelopment of Social Learning

Preschoolers (ages 3-5) tend to imitate - they copy all actions they observe and understand the goal of the demonstrator

Children younger than 3 tend to emulate (most likely goal emulation) - they use different actions than those observed to achieve the same goal, and most likely understand the goal of the demonstrator

Imitation increases and emulation decreases as children enter the preschool years.

Preschoolers (ages 3-5) tend to imitate - they copy all actions they observe and understand the goal of the demonstrator

Children younger than 3 tend to emulate (most likely goal emulation) - they use different actions than those observed to achieve the same goal, and most likely understand the goal of the demonstrator

Imitation increases and emulation decreases as children enter the preschool years.

Different forms of social learning Different forms of social learning

Teaching (Instructed Learning) Actor A modifies his or her behavior only in the presence of another, Actor B,

without attaining any immediate benefits. As a result of encouraging or discouraging B’s behavior, B acquires a new skill. To be done effectively, teaching requires that both the instructor and student take the perspective of the other.

Example: An adult shows a child how to make actions to open a box, perhaps making slow and deliberate motions, molding the child’s fingers, and the child, not the adult, gets the candy inside.

Teaching (Instructed Learning) Actor A modifies his or her behavior only in the presence of another, Actor B,

without attaining any immediate benefits. As a result of encouraging or discouraging B’s behavior, B acquires a new skill. To be done effectively, teaching requires that both the instructor and student take the perspective of the other.

Example: An adult shows a child how to make actions to open a box, perhaps making slow and deliberate motions, molding the child’s fingers, and the child, not the adult, gets the candy inside.

Tomasello’s Theory of Cultural LearningTomasello’s Theory of Cultural Learning

Imitative learning (9-months) Instructed learning (4 years) Collaborative learning (6 years)

Imitative learning (9-months) Instructed learning (4 years) Collaborative learning (6 years)

Maternal “teaching” in Dolphins (Bender, Herzing, & Bjorklund, 2009)

Maternal “teaching” in Dolphins (Bender, Herzing, & Bjorklund, 2009)

Extensive video library of mother-calf dolphin pairs

Latency of mother to consume prey fish from routing to ingestion when foraging: Alone With calf

Extensive video library of mother-calf dolphin pairs

Latency of mother to consume prey fish from routing to ingestion when foraging: Alone With calf

“Teaching” in dolphins“Teaching” in dolphins

http://www.world-science.net/images/videos/10071_2008_169_MOESM2_ESM.mpeg

“Teaching” in nonhuman animals“Teaching” in nonhuman animals

Can apes ape?Can apes ape?

Chimpanzees possess “culture” – nongenetic transmission of information across generations (Whiten et al., 1999)

Some evidence of teaching, but rare

Chimpanzees possess “culture” – nongenetic transmission of information across generations (Whiten et al., 1999)

Some evidence of teaching, but rare

Deferred (Delayed) ImitationDeferred (Delayed) Imitation

Reproduction of observed behavior after significant time interval

Involves the representation of actions held in long-term memory stores, which requires symbolic representation (Piaget; Meltzoff)

May reflect declarative/explicit, as opposed to nondeclarative/implicit, memory (McDonough et al., 1995)

Human infants show evidence of deferred imitation for simple actions by 9 months and for more complex actions by 18 months

Reproduction of observed behavior after significant time interval

Involves the representation of actions held in long-term memory stores, which requires symbolic representation (Piaget; Meltzoff)

May reflect declarative/explicit, as opposed to nondeclarative/implicit, memory (McDonough et al., 1995)

Human infants show evidence of deferred imitation for simple actions by 9 months and for more complex actions by 18 months

EnculturationEnculturation “Apes raised by humans in something like a human

cultural environment (sometimes including exposure to or training in symbolic skills); the environment need not literally be a home but must include something close to daily contact with humans and their artifacts in meaningful interaction (Call & Tomasello, 1996)

Direct teaching Language Joint-shared attention

“Apes raised by humans in something like a human cultural environment (sometimes including exposure to or training in symbolic skills); the environment need not literally be a home but must include something close to daily contact with humans and their artifacts in meaningful interaction (Call & Tomasello, 1996)

Direct teaching Language Joint-shared attention

Tomasello, Savage-Rumbaugh, and Kruger (1993)

Tomasello, Savage-Rumbaugh, and Kruger (1993)

3 enculturated chimps (2 bonobos and 1 common) 3 mother-reared chimps (2 bonobos and 1 common) 18- and 30-month old children 4 deferred-imitation tasks of simple tool use.

Baseline, objects from 4 tasks to interact with for 4 minutes Target behavior modeled for animal

24 hour delay, animal given objects for 4 minutes and look for evidence of deferred imitation

3 enculturated chimps (2 bonobos and 1 common) 3 mother-reared chimps (2 bonobos and 1 common) 18- and 30-month old children 4 deferred-imitation tasks of simple tool use.

Baseline, objects from 4 tasks to interact with for 4 minutes Target behavior modeled for animal

24 hour delay, animal given objects for 4 minutes and look for evidence of deferred imitation

Percentage of trials showing deferred imitation for children and chimps (Tomasello et al., 1993)

Percentage of trials showing deferred imitation for children and chimps (Tomasello et al., 1993)

Design of Deferred Imitation Experiment (Bering, Bjorklund, & Ragan, 2000)

Design of Deferred Imitation Experiment (Bering, Bjorklund, & Ragan, 2000)

3 Enculturated Juvenile Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) 3 Enculturated Juvenile Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) Sequence for Each of 7 Tasks 4-minute Baseline 5-minute Delay Demonstration of Target Behavior (6 displays) 10-minute delay 4-minute Deferred Imitation Phase

3 Enculturated Juvenile Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) 3 Enculturated Juvenile Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) Sequence for Each of 7 Tasks 4-minute Baseline 5-minute Delay Demonstration of Target Behavior (6 displays) 10-minute delay 4-minute Deferred Imitation Phase

GrubGrub

KenyaKenya

NoelleNoelle

ScoringScoring

Target Approximation to the Target No Imitative Behavior

Target Approximation to the Target No Imitative Behavior

Percentage Deferred Imitation: ChimpanzeesPercentage Deferred Imitation: Chimpanzees

Median Latencies to Imitate Target or Approximation to Target Behaviors during the Deferred Trials:

Chimpanzees

Median Latencies to Imitate Target or Approximation to Target Behaviors during the Deferred Trials:

Chimpanzees

Grub (5 behaviors): 12.0 sec Kenya (5 behaviors): 35.0 sec Noelle (2 behaviors): 17.5 sec

Group median = 17.5 sec % displayed with in 60 sec: 92% % displayed within 30 sec: 67%

Grub (5 behaviors): 12.0 sec Kenya (5 behaviors): 35.0 sec Noelle (2 behaviors): 17.5 sec

Group median = 17.5 sec % displayed with in 60 sec: 92% % displayed within 30 sec: 67%

Deferred Imitation in Nonenculturated Chimpanzees Deferred Imitation in Nonenculturated Chimpanzees

Five female lab-reared chimpanzees, all long-term members of a stable social group at Yerkes Field Station

Kristin Bonnie and Frans de Waal

Phases 1 and 2 Georgia: 24 years, 2 month Katie: 15 years, 6 months Anja: 24 years, 10 months Dona: 14 years, 7 months

Phase 3 Rita: 17 years, 1 month

No evidence of immediate or deferred imitation by any animal in any phase

Five female lab-reared chimpanzees, all long-term members of a stable social group at Yerkes Field Station

Kristin Bonnie and Frans de Waal

Phases 1 and 2 Georgia: 24 years, 2 month Katie: 15 years, 6 months Anja: 24 years, 10 months Dona: 14 years, 7 months

Phase 3 Rita: 17 years, 1 month

No evidence of immediate or deferred imitation by any animal in any phase

Generalization of ImitationGeneralization of Imitation

Generalizing behaviors observed with one set of objects to similar, but not identical, objects, to achieve a goal.

Such generalization requires the actor to understand that a similar goal, with a new set of objects, can be achieved by executing similar actions.

Generalizing behaviors observed with one set of objects to similar, but not identical, objects, to achieve a goal.

Such generalization requires the actor to understand that a similar goal, with a new set of objects, can be achieved by executing similar actions.

Design of Generalization of Imitation Experiment: Chimpanzees

(Bjorklund, Yunger, Bering, & Ragan, 2002)

Design of Generalization of Imitation Experiment: Chimpanzees

(Bjorklund, Yunger, Bering, & Ragan, 2002)

3 Enculturated Juveniles Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) Sequence for Each of 8 Tasks 6-minute baseline with two sets of objects (e.g., cymbals and trowels) 5-minute Delay Demonstration of Target Behavior (e.g, with cymbals) 10-minute delay 4-minute Generalization of Imitation Phase with different objects than

used in demonstration 4-minute Imitation Phase with same objects used in demonstration

3 Enculturated Juveniles Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) Sequence for Each of 8 Tasks 6-minute baseline with two sets of objects (e.g., cymbals and trowels) 5-minute Delay Demonstration of Target Behavior (e.g, with cymbals) 10-minute delay 4-minute Generalization of Imitation Phase with different objects than

used in demonstration 4-minute Imitation Phase with same objects used in demonstration

Percentage Imitation and Generalization of Imitation: Chimpanzees

Percentage Imitation and Generalization of Imitation: Chimpanzees

Species-atypical environments for human-reared chimpanzees produced modified patterns of social cognition. What is the nature of such changes?

Species-atypical environments for human-reared chimpanzees produced modified patterns of social cognition. What is the nature of such changes?

Produce only molar (i.e., behavioral) level changes in sociality leading to enhanced learning abilities Socialization of attention (Tomasello) Apprenticeship hypothesis (Bering)

Changes in the epigenetic system leading to the phenotypical expression of cognitive abilities that are otherwise suppressed under natural conditions

Produce only molar (i.e., behavioral) level changes in sociality leading to enhanced learning abilities Socialization of attention (Tomasello) Apprenticeship hypothesis (Bering)

Changes in the epigenetic system leading to the phenotypical expression of cognitive abilities that are otherwise suppressed under natural conditions

Chimpanzees, and likely our common ancestor with chimpanzees, possessed the necessary plasticity to modify their social cognition in response to novel environments, possibly leading to the exploration of new niches and to new selection pressures, and eventually to evolutionary changes in intelligence.

Chimpanzees, and likely our common ancestor with chimpanzees, possessed the necessary plasticity to modify their social cognition in response to novel environments, possibly leading to the exploration of new niches and to new selection pressures, and eventually to evolutionary changes in intelligence.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive TheoryBandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

Reciprocal determinism: children affect their environment as much as their environment affects them.

Reciprocal determinism: children affect their environment as much as their environment affects them.

Capabilities involved Bandura’s social cognitive theory and the four subprocesses of observational

learning

Capabilities involved Bandura’s social cognitive theory and the four subprocesses of observational

learning Key Cognitive Capabilities

Symbolization: The ability to think about social behavior in words and images.

Forethought: The ability to anticipate the consequences of our actions and the actions of

others. Self-regulation:

The ability to adopt standards of acceptable behavior for ourselves. Self-reflection:

The ability to analyze our thoughts and actions. Vicarious learning:

The ability to learn new behavior and the consequences of one’s actions by observing others.

Key Cognitive Capabilities Symbolization:

The ability to think about social behavior in words and images. Forethought:

The ability to anticipate the consequences of our actions and the actions of others.

Self-regulation: The ability to adopt standards of acceptable behavior for ourselves.

Self-reflection: The ability to analyze our thoughts and actions.

Vicarious learning: The ability to learn new behavior and the consequences of one’s actions

by observing others.

Subprocesses of Observational LearningSubprocesses of Observational Learning

Attentional processes Retention processes Production processes Motivational processes

Attentional processes Retention processes Production processes Motivational processes

Dodge’s Model of Social Information ProcessingDodge’s Model of Social Information Processing

Cognitive Bases of Gender IdentificationCognitive Bases of Gender Identification

Gender Constancy (Kohlberg) Gender identity Gender stability Gender consistency

Gender Schemas Gender Knowledge of Sex-Types Behaviors

Gender Constancy (Kohlberg) Gender identity Gender stability Gender consistency

Gender Schemas Gender Knowledge of Sex-Types Behaviors

Time line for early gender development (Adapted from Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002).

Time line for early gender development (Adapted from Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002).

Age Gender-based knowledge and perception 6-8 months Discriminate between voices of males and females Will habituate (reduce looking time) to one category of faces (male or female) 9-11 moths Discriminate between male and females faces Associate female faces with female voices 12-14 months Associate female faces with female voices and male faces with male voices 18-20 months

Associate sex-stereotypic objects with “appropriate” gender (that is, associate male faces with male-stereotypic objects and female faces with female-stereotypic objects)

Associate verbal labels (lady, man) with appropriate faces 24-26 months Correctly identify pictures of boys and girls Imitate gender-related sequences

Generalize imitation to appropriate gender (for example, using a male doll to imitate a masculine activity

 

Age Gender-based knowledge and perception 6-8 months Discriminate between voices of males and females Will habituate (reduce looking time) to one category of faces (male or female) 9-11 moths Discriminate between male and females faces Associate female faces with female voices 12-14 months Associate female faces with female voices and male faces with male voices 18-20 months

Associate sex-stereotypic objects with “appropriate” gender (that is, associate male faces with male-stereotypic objects and female faces with female-stereotypic objects)

Associate verbal labels (lady, man) with appropriate faces 24-26 months Correctly identify pictures of boys and girls Imitate gender-related sequences

Generalize imitation to appropriate gender (for example, using a male doll to imitate a masculine activity

 

A model of phase changes in the rigidity of children’s gender stereotypes as a function of age (Martin, & Ruble, 2004).

A model of phase changes in the rigidity of children’s gender stereotypes as a function of age (Martin, & Ruble, 2004).

Some important emergent literacy skills and knowledge (Adapted from Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).

Some important emergent literacy skills and knowledge (Adapted from Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).

1. Language: Although reading is not simply a reflection of spoken language, children need to be versatile with their spoken language before they can be expected to read it.

2. Conventions of print: Knowledge of some of the basics of how print is organized for reading. For example, in English, children learn that reading is done left-to-right, top-to-bottom, and front-to-back.

3. Knowledge of letters: Most children can recite their ABCs before entering school and can identify individual letters of the alphabet.

4. Linguistic awareness: Children must learn to identify not only letters but also linguistic units, such as phonemes, syllables, and words.

5. Phoneme-grapheme correspondence: Knowledge of the sounds that correspond to letters.

6. Emergent reading: Many children pretend to read, taking a familiar storybook and making up a narrative.

7. Emergent writing: Similar to pretend reading, children often pretend to write, making squiggles on a page to “write” their name or a story.

8. Print motivation: Children differ in their motivation to learn to read. Children who are interested in reading and writing are more likely to notice print, ask questions about print, encourage adults to read to them, and spend more time reading once they are able.

1. Language: Although reading is not simply a reflection of spoken language, children need to be versatile with their spoken language before they can be expected to read it.

2. Conventions of print: Knowledge of some of the basics of how print is organized for reading. For example, in English, children learn that reading is done left-to-right, top-to-bottom, and front-to-back.

3. Knowledge of letters: Most children can recite their ABCs before entering school and can identify individual letters of the alphabet.

4. Linguistic awareness: Children must learn to identify not only letters but also linguistic units, such as phonemes, syllables, and words.

5. Phoneme-grapheme correspondence: Knowledge of the sounds that correspond to letters.

6. Emergent reading: Many children pretend to read, taking a familiar storybook and making up a narrative.

7. Emergent writing: Similar to pretend reading, children often pretend to write, making squiggles on a page to “write” their name or a story.

8. Print motivation: Children differ in their motivation to learn to read. Children who are interested in reading and writing are more likely to notice print, ask questions about print, encourage adults to read to them, and spend more time reading once they are able.

Percentage of correct responses of children reading familiar real words and pseudo words for languages with shallow orthographies (Finish,

Greek, and Italian) versus languages with deep orthographies (French, Danish, and Scottish English)

Percentage of correct responses of children reading familiar real words and pseudo words for languages with shallow orthographies (Finish,

Greek, and Italian) versus languages with deep orthographies (French, Danish, and Scottish English)

Accuracy of pseudoword reading as a function of age for children with and without reading disability

Accuracy of pseudoword reading as a function of age for children with and without reading disability

Sex differences in reading/verbal abilities in 25 countries. The longer the line, the greater the sex difference, favoring girls (Halpern et al., 2007). Sex differences in reading/verbal abilities in 25 countries. The longer the line, the greater the sex difference, favoring girls (Halpern et al., 2007).

Some of the addition strategies children use for the problem “How much is 3 plus 2?”

Some of the addition strategies children use for the problem “How much is 3 plus 2?”

Sum strategy: This is a counting strategy in which young children count, often on their fingers, each addend (for example, saying, “1, 2 . . . 1, 2, 3 . . .1, 2, 3, 4, 5”; or a bit more efficiently, “1, 2, 3 . . . 4, 5”).

Min strategy: This is a more efficient counting strategy than the sum strategy, in which children count from the larger addend (in this case 3), thus making the minimum number of counts (for example, saying, “3 . . . 4, 5”). Slightly older children will use both the sum and min strategy “in their head,” counting covertly.

Fact retrieval: This is a non-counting strategy, in which children have memorized the answer to a problem (they “just know” that 2 plus 3 equals 5), and say the answer quickly without counting either out loud or covertly.

Sum strategy: This is a counting strategy in which young children count, often on their fingers, each addend (for example, saying, “1, 2 . . . 1, 2, 3 . . .1, 2, 3, 4, 5”; or a bit more efficiently, “1, 2, 3 . . . 4, 5”).

Min strategy: This is a more efficient counting strategy than the sum strategy, in which children count from the larger addend (in this case 3), thus making the minimum number of counts (for example, saying, “3 . . . 4, 5”). Slightly older children will use both the sum and min strategy “in their head,” counting covertly.

Fact retrieval: This is a non-counting strategy, in which children have memorized the answer to a problem (they “just know” that 2 plus 3 equals 5), and say the answer quickly without counting either out loud or covertly.

Average SAT-Mathematics scores for males and females from 1967 to 2003(Halpern et al., 2007)

Average SAT-Mathematics scores for males and females from 1967 to 2003(Halpern et al., 2007)

Approaches to the Study of IntelligenceApproaches to the Study of Intelligence

Intelligence is “the mental activities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selecting of, any environmental context. . . (I)ntelligence is not just reactive to the environment but also active in forming it. It offers people an opportunity to respond flexibly to challenging situations” (Sternberg, 1997)

Intelligence is “the mental activities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selecting of, any environmental context. . . (I)ntelligence is not just reactive to the environment but also active in forming it. It offers people an opportunity to respond flexibly to challenging situations” (Sternberg, 1997)

The Psychometric Approach to the Study of Intelligence

The Psychometric Approach to the Study of Intelligence

Psychometric theories of intelligence have as their basis a belief that intelligence can be described in terms of mental factors and that tests can be constructed that reveal individual differences in the factors that underlie mental performance.

Factors are related mental skills that (presumably) affect thinking in a wide range of situations.

Psychometric theories of intelligence have as their basis a belief that intelligence can be described in terms of mental factors and that tests can be constructed that reveal individual differences in the factors that underlie mental performance.

Factors are related mental skills that (presumably) affect thinking in a wide range of situations.

Factor analysisFactor analysis

Vocabulary Reading comprehension Story completion Verbal analogies

Verbal factor

3-D rotation Maze learning Form-board performance

Spatial factor

Vocabulary Reading comprehension Story completion Verbal analogies

Verbal factor

3-D rotation Maze learning Form-board performance

Spatial factor

How many factors of intelligence are there?How many factors of intelligence are there?

Spearman’s g – general intelligence

Guilford’s structure-of-the-intellect model – 180

Raymond Cattell’s theory which recognizes g and two second-level factors:

fluid intelligence: biologically determined and is reflected in tests of memory span and most tests of spatial thinking

crystallized intelligence: best reflected in tests of verbal comprehension or social relations, skills that depend more highly on cultural context and experience

Spearman’s g – general intelligence

Guilford’s structure-of-the-intellect model – 180

Raymond Cattell’s theory which recognizes g and two second-level factors:

fluid intelligence: biologically determined and is reflected in tests of memory span and most tests of spatial thinking

crystallized intelligence: best reflected in tests of verbal comprehension or social relations, skills that depend more highly on cultural context and experience

IQ TestsIQ Tests

Stanford-Binet

Wechsler scales

Stanford-Binet

Wechsler scales

Wechsler scalesWechsler scales

WPPSI (Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence)

WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children)

WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale)

WPPSI (Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence)

WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children)

WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale)

Verbal IQVerbal IQ

Information

Similarities

Arithmetic

Vocabulary

Comprehension

Digit Span (optional)

Information

Similarities

Arithmetic

Vocabulary

Comprehension

Digit Span (optional)

Performace IQPerformace IQ Picture Completion

Coding

Picture Arrangement

Block Design

Object Assembly

Symbol Search

Mazes (optional)

Picture Completion

Coding

Picture Arrangement

Block Design

Object Assembly

Symbol Search

Mazes (optional)

Information-Processing Approaches to Intelligence

Information-Processing Approaches to Intelligence

Basic-Level Processes

Speed of Information Processing Distinguishes:

LD from non-LD children Good from poor readers Varies with IQ (correlations ranging from -.30 to -.50)

Working Memory Distinguishes:

Good from poor readers Varies with IQ (as high as .82 for 4- and 6-year olds)

Basic-Level Processes

Speed of Information Processing Distinguishes:

LD from non-LD children Good from poor readers Varies with IQ (correlations ranging from -.30 to -.50)

Working Memory Distinguishes:

Good from poor readers Varies with IQ (as high as .82 for 4- and 6-year olds)

Higher-Level Cognitive AbilitiesHigher-Level Cognitive Abilities

Strategies

Distinguishes: LD and non-LD children Children with and without mental retardation Good and poor readers Gifted and nongifted children

Gaultney et al., 1996: Strategy use in gifted vs. nongifted children

Strategies

Distinguishes: LD and non-LD children Children with and without mental retardation Good and poor readers Gifted and nongifted children

Gaultney et al., 1996: Strategy use in gifted vs. nongifted children

Knowledge BaseKnowledge Base

Schneider et al., 1988

3rd, 5th, and 7th graders

Expertise (soccer experts vs. soccer novices) x IQ level (low vs. high)

Text recall of story about a soccer match

Schneider et al., 1988

3rd, 5th, and 7th graders

Expertise (soccer experts vs. soccer novices) x IQ level (low vs. high)

Text recall of story about a soccer match

MetacognitionMetacognition

Distinguishes: LD and non-LD children Children with and without mental retardation Varies with IQ Gifted and nongifted children Reflective and impulsive children

Distinguishes: LD and non-LD children Children with and without mental retardation Varies with IQ Gifted and nongifted children Reflective and impulsive children

Piagetian Approaches to IntelligencePiagetian Approaches to Intelligence

Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of IntelligenceSternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Contextual subtheory Adaptation Selection Shaping Cultural relativism

Experiental subtheory The ability to deal with novelty and the degree to which processing is automtized. The job of the child in development is to “render the novel familiar” (Rheingold)

Componential subtheory Metacomponents Performance components Knowledge-acquisition components

Contextual subtheory Adaptation Selection Shaping Cultural relativism

Experiental subtheory The ability to deal with novelty and the degree to which processing is automtized. The job of the child in development is to “render the novel familiar” (Rheingold)

Componential subtheory Metacomponents Performance components Knowledge-acquisition components

Triarchic theory applied to educationTriarchic theory applied to education

Practical thinking (contextual subtheory) Creative thinking (experiential subtheory) Analytical thinking (componential subtheory)

Practical thinking (contextual subtheory) Creative thinking (experiential subtheory) Analytical thinking (componential subtheory)

Examples of the instruction and assessment method based on the triarchic theory that might

be used in a course in cognitive development

Examples of the instruction and assessment method based on the triarchic theory that might

be used in a course in cognitive development

Practical (contextual subtheory) What are the implications of the fact of infantile

amnesia for your life? For the legal system? Creative (experiential subtheory) Design an experiment to test a theory of infantile

amnesia. Analytical (componential subtheory) Compare Freud’s theory of infantile amnesia with

Katherine Nelson’s theory.

Practical (contextual subtheory) What are the implications of the fact of infantile

amnesia for your life? For the legal system? Creative (experiential subtheory) Design an experiment to test a theory of infantile

amnesia. Analytical (componential subtheory) Compare Freud’s theory of infantile amnesia with

Katherine Nelson’s theory.

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple IntelligencesGardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Criteria for IntelligenceCriteria for Intelligence

Potential isolation by brain damage The existence of savants and prodigies An identifiable core operation or set of operations A distinctive developmental history, along with a definable set of

expert end-state performances An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility Support from experimental psychological tasks and from

psychometric findings Susceptibility to encoding in a system

Potential isolation by brain damage The existence of savants and prodigies An identifiable core operation or set of operations A distinctive developmental history, along with a definable set of

expert end-state performances An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility Support from experimental psychological tasks and from

psychometric findings Susceptibility to encoding in a system

Transactional Model of DevelopmentTransactional Model of Development

Development is seen as the continuous and bidirectional interaction between an active organism and with a unique biological constitution and a changing environment.

Development is seen as the continuous and bidirectional interaction between an active organism and with a unique biological constitution and a changing environment.

Zeskind & Ramey (1981)Zeskind & Ramey (1981)

High-risk rural population Experimental (daycare) group vs. Control group Biologically normal vs. Fetally malnourished

Stanford-Binet IQ scores at 36 months (from Zeskind & Ramey, 1981)Biologically Fetallynormal malnourished

Exper’tal group 98.1 96.4

Control group 84.7 70.6

High-risk rural population Experimental (daycare) group vs. Control group Biologically normal vs. Fetally malnourished

Stanford-Binet IQ scores at 36 months (from Zeskind & Ramey, 1981)Biologically Fetallynormal malnourished

Exper’tal group 98.1 96.4

Control group 84.7 70.6

HeritabilityHeritability

Heritability refers to the extend to which differences in a trait within a population can be attributed to (genetic) inheritance.

Heritability ranges from 0 (none of the differences in a trait are attributed to inheritance)

to 1.0 (100% of the differences in a trait are attributed to

inheritance)

Heritability refers to the extend to which differences in a trait within a population can be attributed to (genetic) inheritance.

Heritability ranges from 0 (none of the differences in a trait are attributed to inheritance)

to 1.0 (100% of the differences in a trait are attributed to

inheritance)

Familial Studies of IntelligenceFamilial Studies of Intelligence

Heritability statistic (H) from twin studies

H = (r of identical twins – r of nonidentical twins) x 2

IQ: H = (.86 - .60) x 2 = .26 x 2 = .52

52% of differences in intelligence between people is attributed to genetics

Heritability statistic (H) from twin studies

H = (r of identical twins – r of nonidentical twins) x 2

IQ: H = (.86 - .60) x 2 = .26 x 2 = .52

52% of differences in intelligence between people is attributed to genetics

Developmental Differences in HeritabilityDevelopmental Differences in Heritability

Plomin et al. (1997)

IQs of parents and their biological and adopted children

Nonadopted biological parents and their children served as controls

Children tested at ages 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 16 years

Plomin et al. (1997)

IQs of parents and their biological and adopted children

Nonadopted biological parents and their children served as controls

Children tested at ages 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 16 years

The Role of Environment in Behavior Genetic Analysis

The Role of Environment in Behavior Genetic Analysis

Shared environment: home environment shared by different members of family

Nonshared environment: environment unique to each individual

Recall Scarr & McCartney’s active genotype -> environment model

Nonshared effects account for greatest amount of nongenetic variance

Shared environment: home environment shared by different members of family

Nonshared environment: environment unique to each individual

Recall Scarr & McCartney’s active genotype -> environment model

Nonshared effects account for greatest amount of nongenetic variance

Nancy Segal: Virtual twin methodNancy Segal: Virtual twin method 2 unrelated siblings less than 9-months apart in age being

reared in the same family

(e.g., 2 adopted sibs; one adopted and one biological sib)

Correlations of IQs of virtual twins: .26

Correlations of IQs of monozygotic twins: .86

Correlations of IQs of dizygotic twins: .60

Correlations of IQs of full siblings: .50

2 unrelated siblings less than 9-months apart in age being reared in the same family

(e.g., 2 adopted sibs; one adopted and one biological sib)

Correlations of IQs of virtual twins: .26

Correlations of IQs of monozygotic twins: .86

Correlations of IQs of dizygotic twins: .60

Correlations of IQs of full siblings: .50

Shared prenatal environments?Shared prenatal environments?

Devlin et al.

20% of differences in IQ accounted for shared prenatal environment

Devlin et al.

20% of differences in IQ accounted for shared prenatal environment

Scarr & WeinbergScarr & Weinberg

Lower-income children adopted by middle-income parents IQ of adopted children = 110 IQ of biological parents = 90 IQ of adopted parents = 115

Correlations of children’s IQ with their: Biological parents: .43 Adopted parents: .29

Lower-income children adopted by middle-income parents IQ of adopted children = 110 IQ of biological parents = 90 IQ of adopted parents = 115

Correlations of children’s IQ with their: Biological parents: .43 Adopted parents: .29

IQ data from a hypothetical set of mothers and their children demonstrating a perfect correlation

IQ data from a hypothetical set of mothers and their children demonstrating a perfect correlation

Mother’s IQ Child’s IQ

Mother-child pair #1 105 125 Mother-child pair #2 101 119 Mother-child pair #3 98 117 Mother-child pair #4 94 115 Mother-child pair #5 91 113 Mother-child pair #6 88 108 Mother-child pair #7 82 100 Mother-child pair #8 77 99 Mother-child pair #9 69 92 Mother-child pair #10 65 82

Mean IQ = 87 107 Correlation = 1.0

Mother’s IQ Child’s IQ

Mother-child pair #1 105 125 Mother-child pair #2 101 119 Mother-child pair #3 98 117 Mother-child pair #4 94 115 Mother-child pair #5 91 113 Mother-child pair #6 88 108 Mother-child pair #7 82 100 Mother-child pair #8 77 99 Mother-child pair #9 69 92 Mother-child pair #10 65 82

Mean IQ = 87 107 Correlation = 1.0

Interaction of Genetics and EnvironmentInteraction of Genetics and Environment

Rowe et al. (1999)

IQ scores (PPVT) of 3,139 siblings, including mono- and dizygotic twins, full-siblings, and adopted siblings

Correlations of monozygotic twins: .73 Correlations of full siblings: .39 Correlations of unrelated siblings: .07

Overall H = .57 Shared environment = .13

Rowe et al. (1999)

IQ scores (PPVT) of 3,139 siblings, including mono- and dizygotic twins, full-siblings, and adopted siblings

Correlations of monozygotic twins: .73 Correlations of full siblings: .39 Correlations of unrelated siblings: .07

Overall H = .57 Shared environment = .13

Heritiability estimates by Education LevelHeritiability estimates by Education Level

High-education group (greater than high school)

H = .74 Shared-environment = 0

Low-Education group (high-school education or less)

H = .26 Shared-environment = .23

High-education group (greater than high school)

H = .74 Shared-environment = 0

Low-Education group (high-school education or less)

H = .26 Shared-environment = .23

Experience and IntelligenceExperience and Intelligence

Establishing Intellectual Competence Institutionalization studies Naturalistic studies

Establishing Intellectual Competence Institutionalization studies Naturalistic studies

Modification and Maintenance of Intellectual Functioning

Modification and Maintenance of Intellectual Functioning

Modification of retardation caused by early experience Skeels Study

Modification of retardation caused by early experience Skeels Study

Romanian Adoption Study (O’Connor et al., Romanian Adoption Study (O’Connor et al., 1999)1999)

Romanian Adoption Study (O’Connor et al., Romanian Adoption Study (O’Connor et al., 1999)1999)

Nation Age IQ scores (6 yrs) Nation Age IQ scores (6 yrs)

UKUK 0-6 mos0-6 mos 117117

RomanianRomanian 0-6 mos0-6 mos 114114

RomanianRomanian 6-24 mos6-24 mos 9999

RomanianRomanian 24-42 mos24-42 mos 9090

Nation Age IQ scores (6 yrs) Nation Age IQ scores (6 yrs)

UKUK 0-6 mos0-6 mos 117117

RomanianRomanian 0-6 mos0-6 mos 114114

RomanianRomanian 6-24 mos6-24 mos 9999

RomanianRomanian 24-42 mos24-42 mos 9090