Module III- Intelligence

Intelligence, like love, is one of those concepts that are easier to recognize than to define. We
often refer to others’ intelligence, describing people as bright, sharp, or quick on the one
hand, or as slow, dull, or even stupid on the other. And slurs on one’s intelligence are often
fighting words where children and even adults are concerned. But again, what, precisely, is
intelligence?
Psychologists don’t entirely agree, but as a working definition we can adopt the wording
offered by a distinguished panel of experts (Neisser et al., 1996): The term intelligence refers
to individuals’ abilities 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
careful thought.

Theories of intelligence
Spearman’s G Factor
Spearman (1927), who believed that performance on any cognitive task depended on a
primary general factor (which he termed g) and one or more specific factors relating to
particular tasks. He found that although tests of intelligence often contain different kinds of
items designed to measure different aspects of intelligence, scores on these items often
correlate highly with one another. This fact suggested to him that no matter how intelligence
was measured, it was related to a single, primary factor.
Thus, Charles Spearman saw intelligence as two different abilities. The ability to reason and
solve problems was labeled g-factor for general intelligence, whereas task-specific abilities in
certain areas such as music, business, or art are labeled s-factor for specific intelligence. A
traditional IQ test would most likely measure g factor, but Spearman believed that superiority
in one type of intelligence predicts superiority overall.
Although his early research found some support for specific intelligences, other researchers
(Guilford, 1967; Thurstone, 1938) felt that Spearman had oversimplified the concept of
intelligence. Intelligence began to be viewed as composed of numerous factors. In fact,
Guilford (1967) proposed that there were 120 types of intelligence.

In contrast, other researchers believed that intelligence is composed of many separate abilities
that operate more or less independently. According to this multifactor view, a given person
can be high on some components of intelligence but low on others and vice versa. One early
supporter of this position was Thurstone (1938), who suggested that intelligence is
composed of seven distinct primary mental abilities. Included in his list were verbal
meaning—understanding of ideas and word meanings; number—speed and accuracy in
dealing with numbers; and space—the ability to visualize objects in three dimensions.

Cattell's theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence

Cattell (1963), concluded that two major clusters of mental abilities exist: what he termed
fluid and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence refers to our largely inherited abilities to
think and reason—in a sense, the hardware of our brains that determines the limits of our
information-processing capabilities. In contrast, crystallized intelligence refers to
accumulated knowledge—information we store over a lifetime of experience, plus the
application of skills and knowledge to solving specific problems. In a sense, then, crystallized
intelligence is the outcome of experience acting on our fluid intelligence. The speed with
which one can analyze information is an example of fluid intelligence, while the breadth of
one’s vocabulary—how many words one can put to use—illustrates crystallized
intelligence.
Fluid intelligence seems to decrease slowly with age, but crystallized intelligence stays level
or even increases (e.g., Baltes, 1987). This is why older, more experienced individuals can
sometimes outperform younger ones on cognitive tasks ranging from scientific research to
chess: Declines in older persons’ fluid intelligence are more than offset by the vast store of
knowledge in their crystallized intelligence.

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

One of the later theorists to propose the existence of several kinds of intelligence is Howard
Gardner (1993b, 1999a). Although many people use the terms reason, logic, and knowledge
as if they are the same ability, Gardner believes that they are different aspects of intelligence,
along with several other abilities. He originally listed seven different kinds of intelligence but
later added an eighth type and then proposed a tentative ninth (Gardner, 1998, 1999b). The
idea of multiple intelligences has great appeal, especially for educators. However, some argue
that there are few scientific studies providing evidence for the concept of multiple
intelligences (Waterhouse, 2006a, 2006b), while others claim that the evidence does exist
(Gardner & Moran, 2006). Some critics propose that such intelligences are no more than
different abilities and that those abilities are not necessarily the same thing as what is
typically meant by intelligence (E. Hunt, 2001).

In fact, to aspects of intelligence most of us readily recognize, such as the verbal,

mathematical, and spatial abilities studied by Thurstone, Gardner added such components as
musical intelligence—the kind of intelligence shown by one of my friends who, without any
formal training, can play virtually any tune on the piano; bodily–kinesthetic intelligence—the
kind shown by the Olympic athletes; and personal intelligence—for instance, the ability to
get along well with others.

Measuring Intelligence
The history of intelligence testing spans the twentieth century and has at times been marked
by controversies and misuse. The measurement of intelligence by some kind of test is a
concept that is less than a century old. It began when educators in France realized that some
students needed more help with learning than others did. They thought that if a way could be
found to identify these students more in need, they could be given a different kind of
education than the more capable students.

Binet’s Mental Ability Test

In those early days, a French psychologist named Alfred Binet was asked by the French
Ministry of Education to design a formal test of intelligence that would help identify children
who were unable to learn as quickly or as well as others, so that they could be given remedial
education. Eventually, he and colleague Théodore Simon came up with a test that not only
distinguished between fast and slow learners but also between children of different age
groups as well (Binet & Simon, 1916). They noticed that the fast learners seemed to give
answers to questions that older children might give, whereas the slow learners gave answers
that were more typical of a younger child. Binet decided that the key element to be tested was
a child’s mental age, or the average age at which children could successfully answer a
particular level of questions.

Stanford-Binet and IQ
Lewis Terman (1916), a researcher at Stanford University, adopted German psychologist
William Stern’s method for comparing mental age and chronological age (number of years
since birth) for use with the translated and revised Binet test. Stern’s (1912) formula was to
divide the mental age (MA) by the chronological age (CA) and multiply the result by 100 to
get rid of any decimal points. The resulting score is called an intelligence quotient, or IQ. (A
quotient is a number that results from dividing one number by another.)
IQ = MA/CA × 100

For example, if a child who is 10 years old takes the test and scores a mental age of 15
(is able to answer the level of questions typical of a 15-year-old), the IQ would look like this:

IQ = 15/10 × 100 = 150

The quotient has the advantage of allowing testers to compare the intelligence levels of
people of different age groups. While this method works well for children, it produces IQ
scores that start to become meaningless as the person’s chronological age passes 16 years.
(Once a person becomes an adult, the idea of questions that are geared for a particular age
group loses its power. For example, what kind of differences would there be between
questions designed for a 30-year-old versus a 40-year-old?)

The Wechsler Tests

Although the original Stanford-Binet Test is now in its fifth edition and includes different
questions for people of different age groups, it is not the only IQ test that is popular today.
David Wechsler (Wechsler, 2002, 2003, 2008) was the first to devise a series of tests designed
for specific age groups. Originally dissatisfied with the fact that the Stanford-Binet was
designed for children but being administered to adults, he developed an IQ test specifically
for adults. He later designed tests specifically for older school-age children and preschool
children, as well as those in the early grades. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(WAIS-IV), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV), and the Wechsler Preschool
and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-IV) are the three versions of this test, and in the
United States these tests are now used more frequently than the Stanford-Binet. In earlier
editions, another way these tests differed from the Stanford-Binet was by having both a
verbal and performance (nonverbal) scale, as well as providing an overall score of
intelligence (the original Stanford-Binet was composed predominantly of verbal items).
While still using both verbal and nonverbal items, the WISC-IV and WAIS-IV organize items
into four index scales that provide an overall score of intelligence and index scores related to
four specific cognitive domains—verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working
memory, and processing speed.

Stanford-Binet Test: A widely used individual test of intelligence.

IQ: Originally, “intelligent quotient,” a number that examiners derived by dividing an
individual’s mental age by his or her chronological age. Now IQ simply indicates an
individual’s performance on an intelligence test relative to those of other persons.

Individual and Group Intelligence Tests

A) Individual Tests
An individual test is one that is administered to one individual at a time. There are many
standardised individual tests such as The Kaufman Scales, Stanford-Binet Scale and Wechsler
Intelligence Scales.

Stanford-Binet Scale of Intelligence

The Binet-Simon intelligence test was the first intelligence test, developed by Binet and
Simon (1905). It was one of the popular intelligence tests among psychologists. Later this test
was revised and adapted by an American psychologist Lewis M. Terman who was working at
Stanford University. After validating it on the American population, he renamed the original
scale as “Stanford-Binet Scale”.

The Wechsler Scales

The Wechsler scales were developed by Dr. David Wechsler. He developed three scales; for
adults, for school-age children, and one for preschool children. All three of his tests contain
several subtests from verbal as well as nonverbal domain and they can measure intelligence
and cognitive abilities. He developed his first test (Wechsler- Bellevue scale) in 1939 when
he was working in Bellevue hospital.

There are three versions of Wechsler’s intelligence scale:

i) WPPSI – Wechsler Pre-School & Primary Scale of Intelligence: This scale can be
administered on children from 2 years and 6 months to 7 years and 7 months. It was
introduced in 1967 and originally designed for children between 4 years and 6.5 years old. It
consists of 14 subtests measuring three indices, viz., verbal, performance and full-scale IQ.
Currently, it is in fourth revision known as WPPSI-IV.
ii) WISC – Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: This test can be administered on
children from 6 to 16 years old. This test was developed from the Wechsler-Bellevue
Intelligence Scale and was first introduced in 1949. This test is often used in schools and
other educational setups with the aim to identify gifted children as well as children with
learning difficulties. The most recent version of the test is the WISC-V, which was released in
2014.
iii) WAIS – Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale: This test is used for adolescents from 16
years of age through adulthood to measure general intelligence, by administering many
subtests. Each of the tests is an indicator and estimator of intelligence. The current version of
the test is the WAIS-IV which was launched in 2008.

B) Group Tests
A group test is one that can be administered to more than one person at the same time. Thus,
making the tests quick in administration. There are many intelligence tests which can be
considered as group tests such as Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (MAB; Jackson, 1984),
Cognitive Abilities Test (Lohman & Hagen, 2001), Culture Fair Intelligence Test (1940) and,
Raven’s Progressive Matrices (1938,1992).

Verbal and Nonverbal Tests

A) Verbal Tests
Verbal intelligence is the ability to use and solve problems using language-based reasoning.
Verbal tests are those which require the use of language for successful performance in it.
Verbal intelligence is the ability to comprehend and solve language based problems. Initially,
approximately all intelligence tests were based on language only but later it was realised that
such tests are of no use for people who were illiterate, young children who have not acquired
the language abilities fully and people with speech difficulties. To overcome the limitation of
these verbal tests, many psychologists came up with a number of non-verbal intelligence
tests. Moreover, many verbal standardised tests such as Wechsler scales and Kaufman scales
now also have some non-verbal test components.

B) Non-Verbal Tests
A nonverbal test of intelligence measures one’s ability to analyze visual information and
solve problems without necessarily using words. Nonverbal tests are also known as
performance tests as they generally require a construction of certain patterns. Some of the
famous nonverbal tests are Koh’s Block Design Test, Cube Construction Tests, and Pass
along Tests. Raven’s Progressive Matrices (1938, 1986, 1992, 1995) is also a well-known
nonverbal intelligence test.

Culture-Fair Tests
Every culture is unique in terms of their values, language, expectations, demands and
environmental experiences. A child reared in the US will be very different in many respects
with a child being brought-up in an Indian sub-urban area. Due to this reason, for assessing
individuals belonging to different cultures, psychologists came up with tests which are free
from any cultural biases. Some of the famous culture fair tests are The Culture Fair Test
(Cattell, 1940), Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1938, 1986, 1995), The Leiter
International Performance Scale-Revised (Roid & Miller, 1997) and, Draw-a-Man Test
(Goodenough, 1926). All these and other culturally fair tests are non-verbal in nature.

Individual tests of intelligence: Measuring the extremes

Individual tests of intelligence such as the Stanford–Binet or WISC are costly: They must be
administered one-on-one by a psychologist or other trained professional. Why, then, do these
tests continue in widespread use? The answer is that these tests have several practical uses
and provide benefits that help to offset these costs. The most important of these uses involves
identification of children at the extremes with respect to intelligence—those who are mentally
challenged (i.e., who suffer from some degree of mental retardation), and those who are
intellectually gifted.
The term mental retardation refers to intellectual functioning that is considerably below
average combined with varying degrees of difficulty in meeting the demands of everyday life
(Aiken, 1991). Persons with mental retardation are typically described according to four
broad categories of retardation: mild, moderate, severe, and profound (American Psychiatric
Association, 1994). Individuals’ level of retardation is determined by at least two factors:
their test scores and their success in carrying out activities of daily living expected of persons
their age. As you can guess, persons whose retardation is in the “mild” category can usually
learn to function quite well.
What causes mental retardation? In some cases it can be traced to genetic abnormalities such
as Down syndrome, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome; persons with
Down syndrome usually have IQs below 50. Mental retardation can also result from
environmental factors, such as inadequate nutrition or use of drugs or alcohol by expectant
mothers, infections, toxic agents, and traumas resulting from a lack of oxygen during birth.
Most cases of mental retardation, however, cannot readily be traced to specific causes.

Intelligence tests have also been used to identify the intellectually gifted—persons whose
intelligence is far above average (Friedman et al., 1995; Terman, 1954). A study on
exceptionally bright persons first begun by Lewis Terman in 1925. This study has followed
the lives of about 1,500 children with IQs of 130 or above to determine the relationship
between high intelligence and occupational success and social adjustment. As a group, these
gifted persons have experienced high levels of success. They have earned more degrees,
attained higher occupational status and salaries, experienced better personal and social
adjustment, and were healthier, at each age, than the average adult.
Human Intelligence- Role of Environment and Heredity
Human intelligence is clearly the result of the complex interplay between genetic factors and
a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g., Plomin, 1997).

Evidence for the influence of heredity

Several lines of research offer support for the view that heredity plays an important role in
human intelligence. First, consider findings with respect to family relationships and measured
IQ. If intelligence is indeed determined by heredity, we would expect that the more closely
two persons are related, the more similar their IQs will be. This prediction has generally been
confirmed (e.g., Neisser et al., 1996). For example, the IQs of identical twins raised together
correlate almost +.90, those of brothers and sisters about +.50, and those of cousins about
+.15. (Remember: Higher correlations indicate stronger relationships between variables.)
Additional support for the impact of heredity on intelligence is provided by studies involving
adopted children. If intelligence is strongly affected by genetic factors, the IQs of adopted
children should resemble those of their biological parents more closely than those of their
adoptive parents. In short, the children should be more similar in IQ to the persons from
whom they received their genes than to the persons who raised them.
This prediction, too, has been confirmed. For example, consider a long-term study conducted
by Plomin and his colleagues (Plomin et al., 1997).

In this investigation (the Colorado Adoption Project), the researchers studied 245 children
who were placed for adoption by their mothers shortly after birth (on average, when they
were twenty-nine days old) until they were teenagers. Measures of the children’s intelligence
were obtained when they were one, two, three, four, seven, twelve, and sixteen years old. In
addition, measures were obtained of their biological mothers’ intelligence and of their
adoptive parents’ intelligence. A comparison group of children who were living with their
biological parents was tested in the same manner. The results showed a clear pattern: The
correlation between the adopted children’s intelligence and that of their biological parents
increased over time, as did the correlation between the intelligence of the control group
(children living with their biological parents) and that of their parents. In contrast, the
correlation between the intelligence of the adopted children and that of their adoptive parents
decreased over time. Similar patterns were found for specific components of intelligence, as
well as for general cognitive. These findings suggest that genetic factors play an important
role in intelligence and may indeed outweigh environmental factors in this respect. However,
the authors are also quick to add that the children studied were placed in homes above
average in socioeconomic status; thus, they were not exposed to environmental extremes of
poverty, disadvantage, or malnutrition. Such extreme conditions can strongly affect children’s
intelligence.

Finally, evidence for the role of genetic factors in intelligence has been provided by research
on identical twins separated as infants (usually, within the first few weeks of life) who were
then raised in different homes (e.g., Bouchard et al., 1990). Because such persons have
identical genetic inheritance but have been exposed to different environmental conditions—in
some cases, sharply contrasting conditions—studying their IQs provides a powerful means
for comparing the roles of genetic and environmental factors in human intelligence. The
results of such research are clear: The IQs of identical twins reared apart (often from the time
they were only a few days old) correlate almost as highly as those of identical twins reared
together. Moreover, such individuals are also amazingly similar in many other characteristics,
such as physical appearance, preferences in dress, mannerisms, and even personality. Clearly,
these findings point to an important role for heredity in intelligence and in many other aspects
of psychological functioning.

On the basis of these and other findings, some researchers have estimated that the
heritability of intelligence—the proportion of the variance in intelligence within a given
population that is attributable to genetic factors—ranges from about 35 percent in
childhood to as much as 75 percent in adulthood (McGue et al., 1993), and may be about 50
percent overall (Plomin et al., 1997). Why does the contribution of genetic factors to
intelligence increase with age? Perhaps because as individuals grow older, their interactions
with their environment are shaped less and less by restraints imposed on them by their
families or by their social origins and are shaped more and more by the characteristics they
bring with them to these environments. In other words, as they grow older, individuals are
increasingly able to choose or change their environments so that these permit expression of
their genetically determined tendencies and preferences (Neisser et al., 1996).

Evidence for the influence of environmental factors

Genetic factors are definitely not the entire picture where human intelligence is concerned,
however. Other findings point to the conclusion that environmental variables, too, are
important. One such finding is that performance on IQ tests has risen substantially around the
world at all age levels in recent decades. This phenomenon is known as the Flynn effect after
the psychologist who first reported it (Flynn, 1987). Such increases have averaged about 3 IQ
points per decade worldwide; but in some countries they have been even larger. As a result of
these gains in performance, it has been necessary to restandardize widely used tests so that
they continue to yield an average IQ of 100; what is termed “average” today is actually a
higher level of performance than was true in the past.
What accounts for these increases? It seems unlikely that massive shifts in human heredity
occur from one generation to the next. A more reasonable explanation, therefore, focuses on
changes in environmental factors.

What factors have changed in recent decades? The following variables have been suggested
as possible contributors to the continuing rise in IQ (e.g., Flynn, 1999; Williams, 1998):
better nutrition, increased urbanization, the advent of television, more and better education,
more cognitively demanding jobs, and even exposure to computer games! Many of these
changes are real and seem plausible as explanations for the rise in IQ; but, as noted recently
by Flynn (1999), there is as yet not sufficient evidence to conclude that any or all of these
factors have played a role. In any case, whatever the specific causes involved, the steady rise
in performance on IQ tests points to the importance of environmental factors in human
intelligence.
Additional evidence provided by the findings of studies of environmental deprivation and
environmental enrichment. With respect to deprivation, some findings suggest that
intelligence can be reduced by the absence of key forms of environmental stimulation early in
life (Gottfried, 1984). In terms of enrichment, removing children from sterile, restricted
environments and placing them in more favorable settings seems to enhance their intellectual
growth. For example, in one of the first demonstrations of the beneficial impact on IQ of an
enriched environment, Skeels (1938, 1966) removed thirteen children, all about two years
old, from an orphanage in which they received virtually no intellectual stimulation—and
virtually no contact with adults—and placed them in the care of a group of retarded women
living in an institution. After a few years, Skeels noted that the children’s IQs had risen
dramatically—29 points on average. Interestingly, Skeels also obtained IQ measures of
children who had remained in the orphanage and found that these had actually dropped by 26
points on average—presumably as a result of continued exposure to the impoverished
environment at the orphanage. Twenty-five years later, the thirteen children who had
experienced the enriched environment were all doing well; most had graduated from high
school, found a job, and married. In contrast, those in the original control group either
remained institutionalized or were functioning poorly in society. In the Indian context the
studies do indicate negative effects of poverty and deprivation on measures of intellective
performance . These effects become pronounced with advancing age indicating cumulative
deficit (Misra & Tripathi, 2004; Sinha, Tripathi, & Misra, 1982)
Prolonged malnutrition can adversely affect IQ (e.g., Sigman, 1995), as can exposure to
lead—either in the air or in lead-based paint, which young children often eat because it tastes
sweet. Exposure to such factors as alcohol and drugs; indicate that these factors can also
adversely affect intelligence (e.g., Neisser et al., 1996). In sum, therefore, many forms of
evidence support the view that intelligence is determined, at least in part, by environmental
factors. Especially when these are extreme, they may slow—or accelerate—children’s
intellectual growth; and this effect, in turn, can have important implications for the societies
in which those children will become adults.