Filters
Question type
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the...
View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the...
View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the...
View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the following information for full credit.
--Spearman hypothesized the existence of a single common factor across all these aspects—g, or general intelligence—that accounted for the overall differences in intellect among people. All intelligence test items are positively correlated, he thought, because they reflect the influence of overall intelligence. Spearman wasn’t sure what produces individual differences in g, although he speculated that it has something to do with “mental energy” (Sternberg, 2003). For Spearman, g corresponds to the strength of our mental engines. Just as some cars possess more powerful engines than others, he thought, some people have more “powerful”—more effective and efficient—brains than others. They have more g. Spearman didn’t believe that g tells the whole story about intelligence. For every intelligence test item, Spearman (1927) also proposed the existence of a factor called s, or specific abilities, that are unique to each item, as shown in Figure 9.1. That is, according to Spearman, how well we perform on a given mental task depends not only on our general smarts (g) but also on our particular skills in narrow domains (s).
--Multiple intelligences: different domains of intellectual skill. According to them, the concept of g is wrong, or at least incomplete. These psychologists maintain that we can’t simply say that Sally is smarter than Bill, because there are many ways of being smart. Gardner (1983) outlined a number of criteria for determining whether a mental ability is a separate intelligence. Among other things, he maintained researchers must demonstrate that different intelligences can be isolated from one another in studies of people with brain damage; people with damage to a specific brain region must show deficits in one intelligence but not others. Gardner (1999) proposed eight different intelligences: linguistic, logico-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic.
--Moreover, because Gardner hasn’t developed formal tests to measure his intelligences, his model is virtually impossible to falsify (Klein, 1998). In particular, there’s no good evidence that his multiple intelligences are truly independent, as he claims (Lubinski & Benbow, 1995). If measures of these intelligences were all positively correlated, that could suggest that they’re all manifestations of g, just as Spearman argued. Even research on autistic savants doesn’t clearly support Gardner’s model, because autistic savants tend to score higher on measures of general intelligence than do other autistic individuals (Miller, 1999). This finding suggests that their highly specialized abilities are due, at least partly, to g.
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the following information for full credit.
--Spearman hypothesized the existence of a single common factor across all these aspects—g, or general intelligence—that accounted for the overall differences in intellect among people. All intelligence test items are positively correlated, he thought, because they reflect the influence of overall intelligence. Spearman wasn’t sure what produces individual differences in g, although he speculated that it has something to do with “mental energy” (Sternberg, 2003). For Spearman, g corresponds to the strength of our mental engines. Just as some cars possess more powerful engines than others, he thought, some people have more “powerful”—more effective and efficient—brains than others. They have more g. Spearman didn’t believe that g tells the whole story about intelligence. For every intelligence test item, Spearman (1927) also proposed the existence of a factor called s, or specific abilities, that are unique to each item, as shown in Figure 9.1. That is, according to Spearman, how well we perform on a given mental task depends not only on our general smarts (g) but also on our particular skills in narrow domains (s).
--Multiple intelligences: different domains of intellectual skill. According to them, the concept of g is wrong, or at least incomplete. These psychologists maintain that we can’t simply say that Sally is smarter than Bill, because there are many ways of being smart. Gardner (1983) outlined a number of criteria for determining whether a mental ability is a separate intelligence. Among other things, he maintained researchers must demonstrate that different intelligences can be isolated from one another in studies of people with brain damage; people with damage to a specific brain region must show deficits in one intelligence but not others. Gardner (1999) proposed eight different intelligences: linguistic, logico-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic.
--Moreover, because Gardner hasn’t developed formal tests to measure his intelligences, his model is virtually impossible to falsify (Klein, 1998). In particular, there’s no good evidence that his multiple intelligences are truly independent, as he claims (Lubinski & Benbow, 1995). If measures of these intelligences were all positively correlated, that could suggest that they’re all manifestations of g, just as Spearman argued. Even research on autistic savants doesn’t clearly support Gardner’s model, because autistic savants tend to score higher on measures of general intelligence than do other autistic individuals (Miller, 1999). This finding suggests that their highly specialized abilities are due, at least partly, to g.
Correct Answer
verified
Answers should involve a discussion of a given test providing repeatable scores when taken multiple times but not accurately measuring what it is intended to measure.In addition,a test such as the SAT could be taken twice by a student and both scores could be similar (reliable),but the test may not be predictive of the student's college grades (not valid).
Correct Answer
verified
Answers should involve a discussion of a given test providing repeatable scores when taken multiple times but not accurately measuring what it is intended to measure.In addition,a test such as the SAT could be taken twice by a student and both scores could be similar (reliable),but the test may not be predictive of the student's college grades (not valid).
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the...
View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers should be associated with the eu...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers should be associated with the eu...
View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers should include some mention of h...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers should include some mention of h...
View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the following information for full credit.
--Mysteriously, IQ scores were rising at a rate of about three points per decade, a phenomenon later dubbed the Flynn effect. The magnitude of the Flynn effect is mind-boggling. It suggests that, on average, our IQs are a full 15 points higher than those of our grandparents who lived 50 years ago (see Figure 9.12). With a few exceptions, most researchers agree that the Flynn effect is a result of unidentified environmental influences on IQ, because it’s unlikely that genetic changes could account for such rapid rises in IQ over brief time periods.
(1) Increased test sophistication. According to this explanation, the rise in IQ scores results from people becoming more experienced at taking tests. This hypothesis implies that the Flynn effect reflects an increase in IQ scores but not in underlying intelligence (Flynn, 1998). There may be some truth to the test sophistication hypothesis, but there’s a fly in the ointment. The Flynn effect is most pronounced on “culture-fair” tests, such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices, to which people have had the least exposure.
(2) Increased complexity of the modern world. With television, email, the Internet, fax machines, cell phones, and the like, we’re forced to process far more information far more quickly than our parents and grandparents ever did. So the modern information explosion may be putting pressure on us to become more intelligent (Greenfield, 1998; Schooler, 1998).
(3) Better nutrition. Most evidence suggests that the Flynn effect is affecting primarily the lower, but not the upper, tail of the bell curve. One potential explanation for this finding is diet. People are better fed than ever before, and the rates of severe malnutrition in many (although not all) parts of the world are declining (Lynn, 1998; Sigman & Whaley, 1998). As we’ve already learned, there’s good evidence that nutrition can affect IQ.
(4) Changes at home and school. Over the past several decades, families in Canada, the United States, and many parts of Europe have become smaller, allowing parents to devote more time to their children. Parents also have more access to intellectual resources than ever. In addition, children and adolescents spend more years in school than in previous generations.
Correct Answer
verified
Answers will vary but should contain the following information for full credit.
--Mysteriously, IQ scores were rising at a rate of about three points per decade, a phenomenon later dubbed the Flynn effect. The magnitude of the Flynn effect is mind-boggling. It suggests that, on average, our IQs are a full 15 points higher than those of our grandparents who lived 50 years ago (see Figure 9.12). With a few exceptions, most researchers agree that the Flynn effect is a result of unidentified environmental influences on IQ, because it’s unlikely that genetic changes could account for such rapid rises in IQ over brief time periods.
(1) Increased test sophistication. According to this explanation, the rise in IQ scores results from people becoming more experienced at taking tests. This hypothesis implies that the Flynn effect reflects an increase in IQ scores but not in underlying intelligence (Flynn, 1998). There may be some truth to the test sophistication hypothesis, but there’s a fly in the ointment. The Flynn effect is most pronounced on “culture-fair” tests, such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices, to which people have had the least exposure.
(2) Increased complexity of the modern world. With television, email, the Internet, fax machines, cell phones, and the like, we’re forced to process far more information far more quickly than our parents and grandparents ever did. So the modern information explosion may be putting pressure on us to become more intelligent (Greenfield, 1998; Schooler, 1998).
(3) Better nutrition. Most evidence suggests that the Flynn effect is affecting primarily the lower, but not the upper, tail of the bell curve. One potential explanation for this finding is diet. People are better fed than ever before, and the rates of severe malnutrition in many (although not all) parts of the world are declining (Lynn, 1998; Sigman & Whaley, 1998). As we’ve already learned, there’s good evidence that nutrition can affect IQ.
(4) Changes at home and school. Over the past several decades, families in Canada, the United States, and many parts of Europe have become smaller, allowing parents to devote more time to their children. Parents also have more access to intellectual resources than ever. In addition, children and adolescents spend more years in school than in previous generations.
Correct Answer
verified
Answers should mention a tendency for ne...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Answers should mention a tendency for ne...
View Answer
Showing 1 - 10 of 10
Related Exams