Intelligence

OUTLINE OF RESOURCES

Introducing IntelligenceNOTE:“Artificial Intelligence,” which is listed at the end of this outline, may be used to introduce intelligence.

Classroom Exercise: Intelligence True/False Test (p. 2) NEW

What Is Intelligence?

Classroom Exercise: Researching Intelligence in Different Cultures (p. 3) NEW

PsychSim 6: Get Smart (p. 3)

Multiple IntelligencesLecture/Discussion Topics: Savant Syndrome (p. 3) UPDATED

Kim Peek’s Brain (p. 4) Wisdom (p. 6) NEW

Classroom Exercises: Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (p. 4) UPDATED Sternberg’s Intelligences Applied to College (p. 6) NEW Sternberg’s Balance Theory of Wisdom (p. 6)

Feature Film: Rain Man and Savant Syndrome (p. 3)

LaunchPad Videos: Savant Music Skills* Savant Art Skills: In Autism and Dementia*

Emotional IntelligenceLecture/Discussion Topics: Myths About Emotional Intelligence (p. 8)

Emotional Intelligence: An Ability or Collection of Eclectic Traits? (p. 8) Emotional Intelligence and Success (p. 9) NEW Intelligence, Self-Discipline, and Academic Performance (p. 9)

Classroom Exercise: “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test (p. 7)

Assessing IntelligenceSee “Multiple Intelligences” for exercises that may also be appropriate here.Classroom Exercises: A World War I IQ Test (p. 10)

Issues in Testing (p. 11) Reliability and Validity (p. 13)

Classroom Exercise/Homework Assignment: Evaluating “Free” Intelligence Tests on the Internet (p. 11)

Classroom Exercises/Student Projects: Designing and Administering an Intelligence Test (p. 10) Understanding Predictive Validity (p. 13)

LaunchPad Video: Locking Away the “Feeblemnded”: A Shameful History*

* Titles in LaunchPad are not described within the core resource unit. They are listed, with running times, in the Lecture Guides and described in detail at www.macmillanhighered.com/launchpad/(followed by myers11e, myer-s11einmodules, exploring10e, exploring10einmodules, or pel4e, depending on which text you are using).

1

2 Intelligence

The Dynamics of IntelligenceLecture/Discussion Topics: Why Do Intelligent People Fail? (p. 14) UPDATED

Are Intelligent People Happier? (p. 15) Intelligence Test Scores and the Courts (p. 15) NEW

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Intelligence Classroom Exercise: Mindset (p. 16) NEW

Lecture/Discussion Topics: Reaction Time, Intelligence, and Longevity (p. 16) Misunderstanding Heritability (p. 17)

Group Differences in Intelligence Test Scores Classroom Exercise: Culture-Biased and Culture-Fair Tests (p. 18)

Lecture/Discussion Topics: Environmental Explanation of Group Differences (p. 18) Intelligence as Culturally Defined (p. 18)

Artificial Intelligence

Classroom Exercise/Podcast: Simulating Intelligence and Other Human Traits (p. 19)

RESOURCES

Introducing Intelligence

Classroom Exercise: Intelligence True/False Test

Psychologist and blogger Jeremy Dean (2013) compiled a list of facts we know about intelligence. Distribute Handout 1, which includes six statements related to those facts, to introduce intelligence. Provide the answers either as part of your introduction to this topic, as you discuss it, or as a recap at the end of your cover-age.

1. Intelligence is made up of subsystems; it’s not a single thing.

True. A 2012 study identified three subsystems, “short-term memory, reasoning, and a verbal com-ponent.”

2. Intelligence won’t help you get ahead in life if you grow up in poverty.

False. A 2011 study found that your family can give you a head start, but once you get started, your abilities are more important.

3. Intelligence is more important for success than motivation.

False. In a 2012 study, the greatest predictors of how well students did in math were motivation and time spent studying, not intelligence.

4. People who are high in intelligence have bigger retinal blood vessels.

True. Blood vessels in the brain are similar to those in the retina, so larger retinal blood vessels may mean larger blood vessels in the brain. That may mean a more oxygenated brain.

5. People who are high in intelligence are more likely to go to sleep earlier and get up earlier than people who are low in intelligence.

False. A 2009 study of almost 21,000 teenagers found that those higher in intelligence went to bed, on average, at 12:29am and arose at 7:52am. Those lower in intelligence went to bed at 11:41pm and arose at 7:20am.

6. People who are high in intelligence are happier.

False. It looks like there’s no relationship between intelligence and happiness for individuals. But interestingly countries that have higher, on aver-age, levels of intelligence are, on the whole, hap-pier. See also the Lecture/Discussion Topic: Are Intelligence People Happier? on p. 15 of this unit.

Dean, J. (2013, November 26). 10 Smart Studies that Help Unlock the Mysteries of Intelligence. Retrieved from www.spring.org.uk/2013/11/10-smart-studies-that-help-unlock-the-mysteries-of-intelligence.php.

What Is Intelligence?

Classroom Exercise: Researching Intelligence in Different Cultures

If one hallmark of intelligence is the ability to use what we know to adapt to new situations, then how intelli-gence is measured should differ depending on when and where one lives.

Patricia Greenfield, University of California, Los Angeles, developmental psychologist, argues that it is possible to measure intelligence in people in diverse cultures but first the researchers designing the test must learn as much about the values and practices of that cul-ture (Benson, 2003).

Working in small groups, students should imag-ine that they are psychological scientists interested in measuring intelligence in the children of an unfamiliar culture. First, they should identify questions about cul-tural values and practices that they would like to have answered before creating a test of intelligence for the children of that culture. For example, they may want to know the types of toys children play with; familiar toys could make useful testing materials. How much does the culture value social interactions and social responsi-bility? Are practical skills valued? What kinds of practi-cal skills are needed in this culture?

Benson, E. (2003, February). Intelligence across cultures. Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved from www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx.

PsychSim 6: Get Smart

This activity is a brief review of the methods of mea-suring intelligence, followed by an interactive exercise demonstrating the types of questions typically found on intelligence tests.

Multiple Intelligences

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Savant Syndrome

Savant syndrome is a condition in which people who have otherwise low intelligence have one remarkable skill. Some have skills that are remarkable in contrast to the handicap (talented savants or savant I); others have an ability that would be spectacular even in a normal person (prodigious savants or savant II).

Psychiatrist Darold Treffert has been working with savants since 1962. In a 2013 article, he recounted what he has learned. Treffert believes that within each person, no matter the degree of impairment, is an “island of intactness.” It could be a spectacular ability, such as playing a Tchaikovsky piano concerto from memory, having only heard it once just hours before as 14-year-old Leslie May did. Or it could be something much more ordinary. Our job, as family and friends,

is to identify that ability and focus on it as a point of strength. Foster that strength and what may have been just imitation can become improvised, ultimately lead-ing to creating something new.

People with savant syndrome are generally happy. But then so are most people, even those who don’t have a particularly noteworthy skill or ability.

The human brain, Treffert notes, is pretty spec-tacular. Will that brain ever be able to fully understand itself? He isn’t sure, but whatever models researchers create need to account for how a brain can have such widespread impairment yet have such an incredible, focused skill.

Do we all have such abilities locked inside of us? Treffert explains that sometimes ‘neurotypical’ people who sustain some sort of brain trauma have exhibited a savant-like ability. For more information, visit savant-syndrome.com.

Treffert, D. (2013, July 31). My marvelous journey with incredible savants: What have I learned? Retrieved from blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/ 2013/07/31/my-marvelous-journey-with-incredible-savants-what-have-i-learned.

Feature Film: Rain Man and Savant Syndrome

Rain Man, starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, provides wonderful clips to use in class for introducing savant syndrome and the questions it raises regarding the nature of intelligence. The film (which is available on DVD) traces the journey of two brothers, hustler Charlie Babbitt (Cruise) and Raymond (Hoffman), who has autism specrum disorder, as they travel from Cincinnati to Los Angeles to claim their deceased father’s estate. Raymond has been institutionalized for years as a resident of a home for the mentally chal-lenged. In the course of their travels, Charlie learns that his older brother has an exceptional computational ability that stands in sharp contrast to his generally low level of intellectual functioning and verbal ability. Charlie eventually uses his brother’s unique talent to monetary advantage at a Las Vegas casino. Among the clips worth using are the following: (1) at 41:30 min-utes into the film (running only 30 seconds), the broth-ers are in a restaurant and Raymond shows an amazing ability to count and compute the number of toothpicks that fall from a small box onto the floor. (2) At 60:50 minutes (running 90 seconds), a doctor asks Charlie whether his brother has any special abilities. Raymond proceeds to demonstrate an astounding capacity to multiply large numbers. At the same time, he cannot tell the price of a candy bar nor can he calculate change for a dollar. (3) At 83 minutes (running 9:15 minutes), while again eating in a restaurant. Raymond shows an amazing ability to recall numbers arbitrarily paired with

Intelligence 3

songs and to remember the playing cards in a half-dealt deck. The clip continues as the two brothers take Las Vegas by storm, utilizing Raymond’s computational ability to amass huge winnings.

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Kim Peek’s Brain

Kim Peek, a nonautistic savant who died on December 22, 2009, was the inspiration for the movie Rain Man. The Biology of Mind unit in these resources included a discussion of research on Kim Peek’s brain. If you did not use this material earlier, you may want to do so now.

Classroom Exercise: Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences suggests that intelligence comes in different packages. Based on data from a variety of sources, but particu-larly from his own research in neuropsychology at

the Boston Veterans Administration Medical Center, Gardner theorizes eight relatively independent areas of intellectual competence (see multipleintelligencesoasis.org/ for more information). The eight areas, the careers they might lead to, and a prominent person representa-tive of each category, according to Gardner, are shown in the table on the next page. (Although Gardner is no longer actively researching intelligences, he has spoken informally about a couple of possible other intelligences: existential and teaching. See multipleintelligencesoasis.org/tom-hoerr-interviews-howard-gardner-about-mi/.)

After presenting each of the categories and their corresponding descriptions, ask students, working in pairs or small groups, to identify three to five careers that would be particularly well-suited to someone strong in each area, and then identify one or two people by name who they think might be especially strong in that category of intelligence. (If you would prefer, dis-tribute Handout 2 to aid students in this activity).

4 Intelligence

Intelligence 5

Gardner’s Categories of Intelligence

Category Description Career Example

Linguistic The ability to use language, sensitivity poet, translator, T. S. Eliot to the order of things. interpreter People strong in this area can argue, persuade, entertain, or instruct through the spoken word.

Logical-mathematical The ability to see the intelligence of mathematician, Einstein numbers and logic, ability to handle scientist chains of reasoning and to recognize patterns and order. People strong in this area think in terms of cause and effect and can create and test hypotheses.

Musical Sensitivity to pitch, melody, rhythm, composer, singer Stravinsky and tone. People strong in this area can sing in tune, keep time to music and listen to musical selections with discernment.

Bodily-kinesthetic The ability to use the body skillfully athlete, dancer, Martha Graham and handle objects adroitly. surgeon These are hands-on people with good tactile sensitivity.

Spatial The ability to perceive the world sculptor, architect, Picasso accurately and to recreate or surveyor transform aspects of that world. People strong in this area often have acute sensitivity to visual details, can draw their ideas graphically, and can orient themselves easily in 3-D space.

Interpersonal The ability to understand people and politician, Gandhi relationships. salesperson, People strong in this area can perceive and respond religious leader to moods, temperaments, intentions, and the desires of others.

Intrapersonal Access to one’s emotional life as a means therapist, social Freud of understanding oneself and others. worker People strong in this area can easily access their own feelings, discriminate among different emotional states, and use this to enrich and guide their own lives.

Naturalist The ability to understand, categorize, botanist, Charles Darwin and explain patterns encountered in farmer, the natural world. rancher People strong in this area observe, interpret, and construct meaning from the natural world.

Classroom Exercise: Sternberg’s Intelligences Applied to College

After discussing Sternberg’s three intelligences (analyti-cal, creative, and practical), ask students to think about a paper or project they are currently working on or have worked on in a current or previous course. What roles did their analytical, creative, and practical intelligences play in completing the project? Give them a couple minutes to reflect, then have them form small groups and share their responses. Invite groups that came up with particularly good examples to share with the rest of the class.

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Wisdom

You can extend your discussion of intelligence by introducing the concept of wisdom. Before you provide explanations by researchers, ask students to think of someone they know personally who they would consid-er wise and jot down a few characteristics of the person that epitomize wisdom.

Have students form small groups to share their thoughts. Ask a representative from each group to write the characteristics they generated on the board. Then share with students how psychological scientists Ursula Staudinger (Jacobs University) and Judith Glück (Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt) (2011) view wis-dom.

General wisdom is about how well someone understands life in general, in more of an observer role. Much of this research focuses on wisdom as advice. To give good advice, one needs expertise in living that can only come through practice. A wise person knows about human development, relationships, and social expectations. They have established strategies for man-aging life’s conflicts. Their advice is contextualized by domain (work, family, and so on) and by time, (past, present, future). They acknowledge the values of the individual to whom they are dispensing advice while at the same time keeping in mind the common good. Lastly, the wise person knows that nothing is certain.

Personal wisdom, on the other hand, is about how well someone understands their own life. Much of this research comes from the personality arena, specifi-cally personal growth. Someone with personal wisdom knows themselves well and has developed strategies for growth and for managing their own emotions. They understand the importance that others have in their life, they can accept themselves and at the same time offer an arm’s length critique, and they tolerate ambiguity well.

The MORE model boils wisdom down to four components. Mastery is knowing that while much of life is uncontrollable, one will be able to cope with whatever comes. Openness is curiosity and the willing-

ness to learn new things. With a Reflective attitude the wise person takes time to view experiences through different lenses. Having Empathy and emotion regula-tion means being able to consider the feelings of others while tending to one’s own feelings.

To gain wisdom it helps to have a wise mentor. Have any of your students identified a wise mentor?

Staudinger, U. M., & Glück, J. (2011). Psychological wisdom research: Commonalities and differences in a growing field. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 215–241. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131659.

Classroom Exercise: Sternberg’s Balance Theory of Wisdom

Handout 3 can be used to introduce Robert Sternberg’s balance theory of wisdom. Have students consider the dilemma in the handout individually or in small groups. Have them volunteer their answers to the full class.

In highlighting the difference between intelligence and wisdom, Sternberg notes that a cunning terrorist may be analytically intelligent in assessing the advan-tages and disadvantages of various targets and even practically intelligent in delivering his attacks, but he is not wise. An unscrupulous businesswoman may pos-sess sufficient emotional intelligence to sell a worthless product and thus betray a trusting public, but she is not wise. An evil tyrant may use his tacit knowledge to control land and resources that are not his own, but we would all agree that he is not wise.

The essential goal of wisdom, suggests Sternberg, is to serve a common good. Wise individuals have bal-anced (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) extra-personal interests. In short, wisdom is not simply about maximizing one’s own or someone else’s self-interest; rather, it is about balancing various self-interests (intra-personal) with the interests of others (interpersonal) and other aspects of the context in which one lives (extrap-ersonal), such as one’s city or country or environment or even one’s religion.

How is wisdom expressed in everyday life? Sternberg poses the example of a teacher who has been instructed by her principal to spend almost all her time teaching in a way that will maximize students’ scores on a statewide assessment test. The teacher believes that the principal is essentially forcing her to abandon the true education of her students. What are the critical factors in her choosing a wise course of action?

A. Balancing of goals and interests: People vary not only in the extent to which they seek a common good but also in what they view to be the com-mon good. The teacher may believe that it is not in the children’s best interests to engage only in rote memory tasks for a state-mandated test. The prin-cipal may see the children’s interests differently.

6 Intelligence

Moreover, both teacher and principal see their own integrity and reputation at stake. Finally, what students learn has implications for their parents and their community. The teacher is left with the responsibility of deciding what is in the best inter-est of all parties concerned.

B. Balancing of short and long terms: People vary in their emphases. The teacher may believe that, in the long run, good education involves more than rote memorization but at the same time may recog-nize that performance on the state assessment test affects the students’ immediate well-being as well as that of the principal and school.

C. Balancing of responses to the environmental con-text: The teacher may adapt to the environment by doing what the principal has instructed. She may shape the environment by doing precisely what she believes she should do or by trying to find some balance that meets both the principal’s and her own goals. Finally, she may decide she cannot live with the principal’s teaching philosophy. She may select another teaching position elsewhere.

D. Acquisition and utilization of tacit knowledge: As we saw earlier, people vary in the extent to which they have acquired tacit knowledge and in how fully they use it. The teacher may have fairly sophisticated tacit knowledge of how to teach, or she may have virtually none and thus have no choice but to do what the principal says. Or, she may decide to teach in a way that represents a compromise between her own views and those of the principal. Clearly, her knowledge of how to balance the various interests of the involved parties will shape her course of action.

Does applying Sternberg’s balance theory of wis-dom to the dilemma in Handout 3 change your class’ answers? Here are some key questions:

1. Whose interests should Charles take into account? 2. How might the short- and long-term interests of

each party be different? 3. How might Charles’ actions reflect adaptation or

shaping of the environment? What would it mean for him to select a new environment?

4. How might tacit knowledge or emotional intel-ligence be relevant to understanding and resolving this difficult life situation?

In contrast to the problems posed on the typical intelligence test, this real-life dilemma has multiple solutions, each associated with liabilities and assets. Most important, as Sternberg observes, values are inte-gral to the balance theory of wisdom. Values penetrate the consideration of interests, the identification of the appropriate response to the environment (i.e., to adapt, shape, or select), and even one’s understanding of the

common good. Obviously, opinions will differ greatly. Still, argues Sternberg, we can surely reach agreement on certain universal values, such as respect for human life, social justice, and enabling people to reach their full potential.

Closely linked to Sternberg’s argument that the essential goal of wisdom is to serve the common good is Thao Le and Michael Levenson’s suggestion that wisdom reflects self-transcendence. They note that the centrality of self-transcendence to wisdom has its roots in philosophical, religious, and contemplative literature. Handout 4 is the self-transcendence inven-tory by Levenson and his colleagues. To obtain a total score, students add the numbers they give in response to the 10 items. Scores range from 10 to 40, with higher scores reflecting a greater tendency toward self-transcendence. A total of 164 undergraduate students scored a mean of 28.9. The authors of the scale suggest that self-transcendence includes “a decreasing reliance on externals for definition of the self, an increasing interiority and spirituality, and a greater sense of con-nectedness with past and future generations.”

Le and Levenson hypothesized that two key imped-iments to self-transcendence (and thus to wisdom) are competitive individualism and immature (or possessive) love. Their correlational findings were consistent with this analysis. They also found that an egalitarian cultural perspective was positively linked to self- transcendence among students. They called for future studies, particularly longitudinal ones, to establish the causal or reciprocal relationships among culture, love, and self-transcendence.

Le, T., & Levenson, M. (2005). Wisdom as self-tran-scendence: What’s love (and individualism) got to do with it? Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 443–457.

Levenson, M. R., Jennings, P. A., Aldwin, C. M., & Shiraishi, R. W. (2005). Self-transcendence: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 60, 127–143.

Sternberg, R. J. (2002, August). Wisdom, schooling, and society. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Emotional Intelligence

Classroom Exercise: “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test

The Developing Through the Life Span unit in these resources discusses Simon Baron-Cohen and his col-leagues’ “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test (as noted there, the test is available online). If you did not use the exercise earlier, you may want to do so now in con-nection with your class discussion of emotional intel-ligence. A key component of emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize emotions in others’ faces.

Intelligence 7

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Myths About Emotional Intelligence

In a review of the literature, Gerald Matthews and his colleagues (2004) identify what they regard as “seven myths about emotional intelligence” and, in each case, the prospects for future progress in solving the research question. They state, “Our aim is not to dismiss work on EI out of hand, but to examine where the first wave of research on the construct is meeting barriers to progress, and whether those barriers can be overcome.” The myths and prospects follow.

Myth 1: Definitions of EI are conceptually coherent. They note that there are several different and even conflicting definitions of the construct in the literature. Prospects for progress are fair. Researchers need to reach consensus on what EI actually is, with closer ties to theories of emotion and intelligence.

Myth 2: Measures of EI meet standard psychometric criteria. Although test reliabilities are often good, the conceptual problems lead to questionable content valid-ity. Predictive and construct validities are also limited. Prospects for progress are good. Normal test develop-ment may improve predictive validity. Problems of con-tent and construct validity will be more challenging due to the uncertain conceptual and theoretical bases of EI.

Myth 3: Self-report EI is distinct from existing personal-ity constructs. There is much overlap with the Big Five and narrower constructs such as empathy and optimism. The prospect for progress is poor. At best, these self-report scales may add further primary or mid-level per-sonality traits that contribute to contemporary personal-ity models.

Myth 4: Ability tests for EI meet criteria for a cogni-tive intelligence. It is still unclear whether ability tests measure intelligence. Prospects for progress are fair. It may or may not prove true that current tests measure an ability. Future work needs to validate test scores against behavioral indices of competence.

Myth 5: EI relates to emotion as IQ relates to cogni-tion. The idea of separate cognitive and emotional states that each has its own “intelligence” is confusing and conflicts with many current theories of emotion and self-regulation. Prospects for progress are poor. Models of self-regulation and executive function that integrate cog-nitive, emotional, and motivational functioning appear to be more likely to explain empirical data.

Myth 6: EI predicts adaptive coping. EI tests may at times correlate with coping scales and outcome mea-sures. Nonetheless, it is simplistic to think such findings establish a single continuum of individual differences in adaptation. Prospects for progress are good. Future

research should be informative about how various com-ponents of EI affect outcomes and processes.

Myth 7: EI is critical for real-world success. Thus far, studies provide an insufficient basis for supposing that either EI is strongly predictive of outcomes in real-world settings or that interventions to increase EI will be cost-effective. The prospects for future progress are fair. At present, there are much better validated personality and ability measures. In the longer term, however, we can expect tests for emotional skills and knowledge to have greater utility.

Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179–196.

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Emotional Intelligence: An Ability or Collection of Eclectic Traits?

John Mayer, Peter Salovey, and David Caruso have expressed concern over the variety of ways in which emotional intelligence (EI) has been conceptualized. They call for a return to their original understanding of EI as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions.”

Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso specifically note how Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence began with this early version of EI but then “mixed in other per-sonality traits, including persistence, zeal, self-control, character as a whole, and other positive attributes.” The best-selling book received extensive press coverage, and because it included reference to Mayer et al.’s theory, some investigators wrongly assumed that the authors of the theory endorsed this expanded understanding of EI. The enormous claims that accompanied the popularizing of IE—for example, that it accounted for 90 percent of the difference between star performers at work and average ones, and that EI accounted for 85 percent of success—were never endorsed by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso.

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) consists of eight tasks, two assessing each of the four branches of their original EI model, namely, (1) managing emotions so as to attain specific goals, (2) understanding emotions, emotional language, and the signals conveyed by emotions, (3) using emo-tions to facilitate thinking, and (4) perceiving emotions accurately in oneself and others. Although the authors admit that MSCEIT has important limitations, they note that it predicts a variety of outcomes, most specifically, better social relations and less deviant behavior.

Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso make five specific rec-ommendations regarding the future of EI:

1. Researchers and practitioners should rely on the sci-entific literature on emotions, intelligence, and emo-

8 Intelligence

tional intelligence to guide their thinking. “Simply put,” suggest the authors, “researchers need to cite the research literature rather than journalistic ren-derings of scientific concepts, which serve a differ-ent purpose.”

2. The term emotional intelligence should be limited to abilities at the intersection between emotions and intelligence. More specifically, it should be limited to the set of abilities involved in reasoning about emotions and using emotions to enhance reasoning.

3. Those interested in EI should refocus research that is relevant to the ability conception of EI. This includes studies using emotional knowledge mea-sures, emotional facial recognition ability, levels of emotional awareness, and emotional self- regulation.

4. Personality and emotional traits, including the need for achievement, self-control, happiness, and asser-tiveness, should not be renamed or considered part of EI.

5. Research on EI as conceptualized in items 2 and 3 should continue, particularly because much remains unknown. Greater attention should be paid to issues of gender and culture, as well as the valid measure-ment of EI. Applications of EI must be conducted with much greater attention to the research litera-ture, be grounded in good theory, and must reject outlandish claims.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits. American Psychologist, 63, 503–517.

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Emotional Intelligence and Success

In 1997, John Mayer and Peter Salovey proposed a model of emotional intelligence that is hierarchical (described in a 2011 article by Marc Brackett, Susan Rivers, and Peter Salovey).

1. The perception of emotion. How well can you identify your own emotions? And the emotions of others?

2. The ability to use the information gleaned from emotions to inform cognitive decision making. For example, can you identify the types and strengths of emotions experienced by others, and use that information to make decisions about what should be done next?

3. The ability to understand where a person’s emo-tions may originate, where they may go next, and how an expression of any given emotion may be a combination of a number of discrete emotions. For example, can you see that a friend is both simul-taneously happy and angry at hearing a piece of news and understand the origin of those seemingly conflicting feelings? (Perhaps your friend’s sports team just won, thus the happiness, but your friend

had actually bet a large of money on their oppo-nents, thus the anger.)

4. The ability to regulate one’s emotions. Can you see when a strong emotional response may not be help-ful? And be able to pull back on that response?

Ask students to think briefly about whether they can identify any friends and/or family members with high emotional intelligence?. Which of that person’s characteristics makes them think the person is emotion-ally intelligent? Have students pair up or form small groups to share the characteristics they’ve identified in that person.

How do measures of emotional intelligence cor-relate with measures of well-being? The higher high school students scored on emotional intelligence scales, the fewer problems they had in school, as reported by their teachers. For college students, higher scores on emotional intelligence scales predicted overall better well-being. But, when times were tough, those with higher scores were more likely receive psychotherapy.

Emotional intelligence has a positive correlation with measures of secure attachment. Relationships with friends are perceived to be more supportive and having less conflict. Adolescents with high emotional intelligence scores have better relationships with their parents.

Ask students what impact they think emotional intelligence has on romantic relationships? Those who have high emotional intelligence scores are happier in their relationships. When both partners have low scores, there is much more conflict in the relationship.

Ask students to imagine that they are in charge of hiring decisions at a company. Would they rather hire someone with high emotional intelligence as com-pared to someone with low emotional intelligence? Or doesn’t it matter? Ask students to explain their responses. Employees with high emotional intelligence get more merit pay increases, and they are perceived as having more leadership potential. If they are already in a leadership role, they are perceived as having more leadership effectiveness.

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success.Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 88–103. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00334.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications (pp. 3–34). New York: Basic Books.

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Intelligence, Self-Discipline, and Academic Performance

Ask your students, “Is intelligence or self-discipline more important in predicting academic success?”

Intelligence 9

Angela Duckworth and Martin Seligman (2005) asked the question in two longitudinal studies of ado-lescents. In their first study of 140 eighth graders, they found that highly self-disciplined students outperformed their less-disciplined peers on various academic perfor-mance variables, including report card grades, standard-ized achievement test scores, and admission to a com-petitive high school. Self-discipline was assessed by self-report, parent report, teacher report, and a delay-of- gratification questionnaire. Interestingly, self-discipline in the fall semester better predicted academic perfor-mance variances than did IQ. And, unlike IQ, self- discipline predicted gains in academic performance over the course of the school year.

In their second study of 164 eighth-graders, Duckworth and Seligman added a behavioral delay-of-gratification task, a questionnaire on study habits, and a group-administered intelligence test. The results indi-cated that self-discipline, again as measured in the fall semester, accounted for more than twice as much vari-ance as did IQ, in final grades, high school selection, hours spent doing homework, hours watching televi-sion (inversely), and even the time of day that students began their homework. The authors conclude that a major reason for students falling short of their intellec-tual potential is a failure to exercise self-discipline.

The results of these two studies are consistent with other research findings summarized by Duckworth and Seligman.

• Of32personalityvariables(includingself-esteem,extraversion, energy level) measured in students, self-discipline was the best predictor of GPA. In fact, it was the only variable that predicted aca-demic success more robustly than SAT scores.

• Self-disciplinedistinguishedPhiBetaKappaundergraduates from non–Phi Beta Kappa students of equal intellectual ability.

• Intwolargesamplesofundergraduates,researchersreported that self-discipline correlated positively not only with grades but with a wide array of other personal and interpersonal strengths.

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self- discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic per-formance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 12, 939–944.

Assessing Intelligence

Classroom Exercise/Student Project: Designing and Administering an Intelligence Test

Before your students read the section on assessing intelligence, ask them to construct an intelligence test. Divide the class into small work groups (a total of six or seven groups is ideal) and instruct each group to design a simple measure that they believe might be indicative of intellectual functioning.

The assignment will stimulate students to reflect on the nature of intelligence, as well as its possible assess-ment. You might suggest that ease of administration and production of a simple numerical score should be among the criteria used to select the measure. In case groups have difficulty getting started, suggest some measure for them to evaluate—for example, the correct number of U.S. presidents named in backward order, the correct naming of quarterbacks in the National Football League, the measurement in inches of head circumference, the number of seconds taken to com-plete a simple puzzle or maze.

When each group has devised a simple measure, have students present and defend it before the rest of the class. Again, discussion will focus on the definition and nature of intelligence, as well as on the validity of the suggested measures.

Depending on time constraints, you can also have students design a procedure for administering their measures. They might specify, for instance, the appropriate order of all the groups’ measures. Prepare instructions, keeping ethical considerations in mind; and design a way to calculate an overall score.

Students can then administer the “intelligence test” to several subjects and bring their data to the next class session. Most students will not anticipate any of the problems that occur in measurement (for example, practice effects of the assessor, order effects among subjects, reliable measurement). The resulting data can lead to questions of interpretation and the importance of norms, as well as the introduction of elementary statistical concepts.

Halonen, J. (1986). Teaching critical thinking in psychol-ogy. Milwaukee: Alverno Productions.

Classroom Exercise: A World War I IQ Test

The world’s first mass administration of an IQ test occurred during World War I. With the aid of Lewis Terman, the U.S. government developed tests to evalu-ate new immigrants and 1.7 million World War I army recruits. “There is nothing about an individual as important as his IQ,” stated Terman. The army’s use of intelligence tests boosted the credibility of psychology as a profession but at the same time stimulated public debate about the validity of the tests and their implica-tions for American democracy.

Handout 5 provides some sample items from those tests. Here are the correct answers as reported by histo-rymatters@gmu.edu.

1. C. tobacco 2. B. cards 3. B. sheep 4. A. flour 5. D. red 6. A. fowl 7. D. author 8. A. B. T. Babbitt 9. C. writer 10. C. Franklin 11. B. it is more comfortable 12. A. it makes a man more useful and happy 13. C. tell him of his mistake 14. A. it is better for the health 15.

10 Intelligence

B. signal the engineer to stop the train 16. C. use the sun or a compass for a guide 17. B. it is more honorable 18. A. it prepares them for adult life 19. C. they can make more by investing the money the house would cost 20. B. it is more nourishing

Many doubted the broad claims of those who promoted army intelligence tests. You might read the “The March of the Psychos” to your students. This mock of psy-chologists appeared in the April 1918 issue of the army post newspaper Camplife Chickamauga.

“The March of the Psychos”

The valiant, bespectacled psychos are wePrepared to assign every man his degreeAnd the place he’s best fitted for in the armeeBy psychologee, psychologee.Bill Kaiser will shake in this throne ’cross the seaWhen he feels the earthquake of our efficiencyPencils up! Forward march! to the great victoryOf psychologee in the Army.

Source: “The March of the Psychos,” Camplife Chickamauga, April 1918. Reprinted in Joanne Brown, The Definition of a Profession: The Authority of Metaphor in the History of Intelligence Testing, 1890–1930. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Classroom Exercise/Homework Assignment: Evaluating “Free” Intelligence Tests on the InternetTo help students understand what makes a “good” test—one that has been standardized and is valid and reliable—have them use the Internet to find a free intellgence test they can take. A Google search for the general term intelligence test turned up about 49,200,000 results in 0.02 seconds, so they should have no problem finding something. But, they need to remember that not all the information available at our virtual fingertips is accurate, up-to-date, or scientifically verifiable. For this reason, students need to learn to be savvy consumers of the information they come across while surfing the Internet. They need to understand and master the ability to examine the sources of informa-tion, as well as analyze the validity of that information.

This exercise will require your students to integrate what they learn about the psychometric properties of good intelligence testing with information literacy skills and communication skills. Students also will need to reflect on the applied value of psychological research to the public, as well as the relevance of intelligence theory and research to the population at large. You can assign this task to be completed by individual students or small groups. You can make this exercise into a one-time written homework assignment, a critical thinking short paper, or an end-of-semester group presentation.

Instruct students to go online and search for a free intelligence test. Have the students take the test

they have selected at least twice and note how they score each time. Then, have the students consider and thoughtfully respond to the following questions.

1. Name of test? Please also provide a formal citation of the website.

2. Who developed the test, and what does the test developer claim to measure with this test?

3. What type(s) of people do you believe this test is intended to reach or to serve? What type(s) of peo-ple do you believe would use this test? For what purposes?

4. Is there any information on the website about the validity or reliability of the test? Is any scientific context for the test, or what it purports to measure, provided?

5. Does the site tell you how to interpret your score(s)? Does it provide you with information about a normative sample/comparison group that was used to establish the meaningfulness of scores?

6. Based on what you have read in your text and learned about in class, do you feel that the test is a good one (from a scientific psychological stand-point)? In your opinion, is it a good, scientifically valid measure of the aspect of intelligence its developer claims to assess with it? Why or why not? What is the basis for your evaluation?

7. How can this test benefit those who take it? How can it harm those who take it?

Classroom Exercise: Issues in Testing

Richard A. Griggs (2000) uses a one-minute “intelli-gence” test to stimulate class discussion of many impor-tant aspects of testing. In addition, the exercise allows you to review elements of problem-solving presented earlier in the text.

Prepare transparencies of Handouts 6a and 6b or make enough copies for each student to have one of each. (Students should not know there are two tests so avoid numbering them.) Distribute the first “intel-ligence” test, then instruct students to number 1 through 24 on a separate sheet of paper for their answers. Make sure students understand that this is not an accepted intelligence test but only an informal exercise devised for a classroom activity. Reiterate this again at the end of the activity.

Instruct the class as follows: “There are 24 items on the test. Each item is made up of letters, words, geometric shapes, and lines. Convert each to a verbal equivalent word or phrase. An example is STTHEORY” (write this sample item on the board). Ask your class for answers. If the correct response is not forthcoming, indicate that the answer is “the inside story” (the word the is inside the word story).

Allow one minute for the test. To protect student anonymity, you may want to collect the answers with-

Intelligence 11

out names and redistribute to the class for tallying (although Griggs has never had a problem with students worrying about anonymity). To get approximate esti-mates of measures of central tendency and variance, have all the students raise their hands and then put them down after counting one past their total number of responses on the test. The range is typically large (4 to 13, or so, with a median of 6 or 7). In reviewing these basic statistical concepts, you might note problems raised with skewed distributions (distributions for the test are usually skewed by a few high scores).

Review the answers by having students volunteer their own responses. Pause especially with some of the harder items (e.g., items 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, 23). Ask students who did solve these items to provide cues for the rest of the class. These problems nicely illustrate fixation and the “aha” of insight.

Ask students if they believe the test is a good mea-sure of intelligence. Because the test is relatively easy, they are likely to suggest that performance is more a function of time and writing speed than of intelligence. Ask, “How might psychologists decide whether this test or any test is valid?” After a brief discussion, announce that the first test was only a “warm-up” and distribute the second test. Again have students provide answers to numbers from 1 through 24 on a separate sheet of paper.

After a minute has passed, announce that you will give them additional time for this more difficult test. Clearly, they will recognize that more than time and motor speed are required. Allow a total of about 5 min-utes and then tally their responses. Check central ten-dencies and range again. Have students provide answers for the first few items and explain that at the end of the activity you will distribute a complete answer sheet so as not to deprive anyone of the pleasure of insight and solution.

If time allows, you can extend the discussion of statistics by noting the need for variance in the calcula-tion of correlations assessing validity and reliability. In discussing validity, note the importance of establishing some criterion, an independent measure of what the test claims to measure. Aptitude tests must have predictive or criterion-related validity, which means they predict future achievement.

Finally, relate predictive validity to the question of bias. Note that everyone acknowledges that intelligence tests are usually biased in requiring certain cultural experiences for optimal performance. Contrast this intu-itive sense of bias with bias in the statistical sense, that is that it has different predictive validity for different ethnic groups. Griggs suggests the following hypotheti-cal: Assume that performance on this test is strongly related to performance on intelligence tests and equally so for various ethnic groups. Given this assumption, what can you conclude about the validity and possible

bias of the test? Clearly, bias has multiple meanings and a test can be biased in one sense but not in another.

Answers to Test a 1. Sandbox 2. Man overboard 3. I understand 4. Reading between the lines 5. Long underwear 6. Crossroads 7. Downtown 8. Tricycle 9. Split-level 10. Three degrees below zero 11. Neon lights 12. Circles under the eyes 13. Highchair 14. Paradise 15. Touchdown 16. Six feet underground 17. Mind over matter 18. He’s beside himself 19. Backward glance 20. Life after death 21. GI overseas 22. Space program 23. See-through blouse 24. Just between you and me Answers to Test b 1. Split-second timing 2. A long letter from home 3. All between us is over now 4. Six of one, half a dozen of another 5. It’s a small world after all 6. Unfinished symphony 7. Blood is thicker than water 8. Seven-up 9. Condescending 10. Scrambled eggs 11. No two ways about it 12. Line up in alphabetical order 13. A gross injustice 14. The odds are overwhelming 15. He’s an exponent of capitalism 16. Astronaut 17. Ambiguous 18. A wolf in sheep’s clothing 19. Sailing, sailing, over the seven seas 20. Assassinate 21. For no apparent reason whatsoever 22. A little misunderstanding between friends 23. A bad spell of weather 24. He came out of nowhere

12 Intelligence

Griggs, R. A. (2000). A one-minute “intelligence” test. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 132–135. In Morris, S. (1983). Omni games: The best brain teasers from Omni magazine (p. 49). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Classroom Exercise/Student Project: Understanding Predictive Validity

Richard Wesp and Sussie Eshun (2005) provide a great classroom exercise that illustrates how psychologists establish the predictive validity of a test. Begin by asking your students to identify a characteristic of class mem-bers that differs dichotomously. You might suggest ath-lete versus nonathlete or players of musical instruments versus nonplayers. Test out student proposals to identify one dimension for which the class shows a 50/50 split. (In their own class, Wesep and Eshun found a relatively equal split between first-borns and later-borns.)

Next, form groups of three to five students each and tell them they have 5 minutes to construct a “ques-tion” with a dichotomous answer that would discriminate between first- and later-borns (that is, a question that elicits different answers from first- and later-born stu-dents). It can be a statement that requires an opinion as an answer (e.g., I like music: agree or disagree). It may be presented in a forced choice format (e.g., I prefer movies or concerts: movies or concerts). It may not, of course, directly answer the crucial question (I am a first-born: yes or no) nor should it be embarrassing or highly confidential.

When a group has formulated a question that you approve, they should write it on the chalkboard with the two alternative answers clearly identified. For example, one of the authors’ groups asked: “Did your parents give you a lot of responsibilities? (a) yes (b) no.”

When all the questions are written on the board, number them and have all class members write their answer to each question. Next, by a show of hands, have all first-borns (or whatever your dichotomous variable is) indicate their answer to each question. Write the results on the board. Do the same for all later-borns. Finally, ask students to identify which questions are good predictors of birth order. The questions that show significant differ-ences between the two groups are useful and have predic-tive validity. For example, if 9 of 18 first-borns agree that their parents gave them a lot of responsibilities but only 4 of 20 later-borns indicated this to be true, the question is probably a question to include in the final test. (As the authors suggest, you may want to calculate percentage differences for each question.) In this case, 50 percent “yes” for first-borns and 20 percent “yes” for later-borns yields a difference of 30 percent. Identify the best and poorest discriminators in the list of questions.

In your concluding discussion, you might ask stu-dents to speculate why some questions are better than

others in predicting membership in one group or the other. Note that because none of the questions are perfect discriminators, we use multiple questions that are moder-ately good predictors. Explain how this same procedure can be used with different types of tests.

Wesp, R., & Eshun, S. (2005). Teaching the principles of test validation in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 234–236.

Classroom Exercise: Reliability and Validity

Ed Morris provides a simple yet compelling exercise to highlight the distinction between validity and reli-ability. He introduces his class to the Morris Shoe-Size Intelligence Test: IQ = shoe size x 10. After class laugh-ter subsides, Morris argues that his test is much more reliable than most IQ tests on the market. Met with disbelief, he explains the important distinction between reliability and validity. “Retests” of his shoe-size intel-ligence test obviously produce highly consistent results (reliability); however, the test does not measure or pre-dict what it is supposed to (validity). Jon Mueller’s “head circumference” IQ measure illustrates the same point. Ask your students if measuring the circumference of a person’s head would provide an IQ test that is reliable, valid, both, or neither. Such a measure would certainly produce consistent scores.

Jane Halonen passes along (from an unknown source) the “t-test” measure of intelligence. Tell students to take out pencil and paper and on the signal “go” to write as many of the letter “t” as they can in 15 seconds. Ask students to report their results, placing them in a frequency distribution on the board (also a good way to review descriptive statistics). Ask, “Is this a good mea-sure of intelligence?” A lively discussion will follow as some students report simple strategies that maximized their scores (e.g., drawing a horizontal line across the page and then quickly intersecting it with short vertical lines). Clearly, the t-test measures something but not the construct of intelligence. Repeat the t-test. Scores are likely to increase dramatically. The test not only lacks validity, it shows little test-retest reliability. If you like, you can extend the discussion to the effect of nonstan-dard test conditions, interrater reliability (what constitutes an acceptable “t”?), etc.

Halonen, J. (2002, September 10). Reliability and validity. Message posted to PSYCHTEACHER@list. ken-nesaw.edu.

Morris, E. (2002, September 12). Reliability and validity. Message posted to PSYCHTEACHER@list.kennesaw. edu.

Mueller, J. (2002, September 10). Reliability and validity. Message posted to PSYCHTEACHER@list. ken-nesaw.edu.

Intelligence 13

The Dynamics of Intelligence

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Why Do Intelligent People Fail?

Intelligent people sometimes make a mess of their lives. Ask students, working in pairs or small groups, to take a few minutes tolist reasons that intelligent people might fail. Go around the room asking each group to name one reason they generated that no other group has already identified. Write each reason on the board (or on a document camera or a computer). After all the groups have reported, give them an opportunity to add new reasons to the list. When all of the ideas are up, share with students Robert Sternberg’s list of 20 stum-bling blocks. The list may also help explain why even the best measures of intelligence may account for only small proportions of the variance in real-world perfor-mance. The stumbling blocks are worth listing in class and may even help students understand discrepancies between their scholastic aptitude scores and academic performance.

1. Lack of motivation. A talent is irrelevant if a per-son is not motivated to use it. Motivation may be external (for example, social approval) or internal (satisfaction from a job well-done, for instance). External sources tend to be transient, while internal sources tend to produce more consistent performance.

2. Lack of impulse control. Habitual impulsiveness gets in the way of optimal performance. Some people do not bring their full intellectual resources to bear on a problem but go with the first solution that pops into their heads.

3. Lack of perseverance and perseveration. Some people give up too easily; others are unable to stop even when the quest will clearly be fruitless.

4. Using the wrong abilities. People may not be using the right abilities for the tasks in which they are engaged.

5. Inability to translate thought into action. Some people seem buried in thought. They have good ideas but rarely seem able to do anything about them.

6. Lack of product orientation. Some people seem more concerned about the process than the result of ac tivity.

7. Inability to complete tasks. For some people, noth-ing ever draws to a close. Perhaps it’s fear of what they would do next or fear of becoming hopelessly enmeshed in detail.

8. Failure to initiate. Still others are unwilling or unable to initiate a project. It may be indecision or fear of commitment.

9. Fear of failure. People may not reach peak per-formance because they avoid the really important challenges in life.

10. Procrastination. Some people are unable to act without pressure. They may also look for little things to do in order to put off the big ones.

11. Misattribution of blame. Some people always blame themselves for even the slightest mishap. Some always blame others.

12. Excessive self-pity. Some people spend more time feeling sorry for themselves than expending the effort necessary to overcome the problem.

13. Excessive dependency. Some people expect others to do for them what they ought to be doing themselves.

14. Wallowing in personal difficulties. Some people let their personal difficulties interfere grossly with their work. During the course of life, one can expect some real joys and some real sorrows. Maintaining a proper perspective is often difficult.

15. Distractibility and lack of concentration. Even some very intelligent people have very short atten-tion spans.

16. Spreading oneself too thin or too thick. Under-taking too many activities may result in none being completed on time. Undertaking too few can also result in missed opportunities and reduced levels of accomplishment.

17. Inability to delay gratification. Some people reward themselves and are rewarded by others for finishing small tasks, while avoiding bigger tasks that would earn them larger rewards.

18. Inability to see the forest for the trees. Some people become obsessed with details and are either unwilling or unable to see or deal with the larger picture in the projects they undertake.

19. Lack of balance between critical, analytical think-ing and creative, synthetic thinking. It is important for people to learn what kind of thinking is expect-ed of them in each situation.

20. Too little or too much self-confidence. Lack of self-confidence can gnaw away at a person’s abil-ity to get things done and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Conversely, individuals with too much self-confidence may not know when to admit they are wrong or in need of self-improvement.

Robert Sternberg’s Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid more fully examines why intelligent people sometimes think and behave in ways that lead to the destruction of their livelihood and even their own lives.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2002). Why smart people can be so stupid. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

14 Intelligence

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Are Intelligent People Happier?

Ask your class: “Are intelligent people happier? Why or why not?”

Your students will likely be interested in the results of a study by Alan Gow and his research team. The University of Edinburg researchers examined a group of 416 senior citizens born in 1921 who took intelligence tests at the ages of 11 and 79. At the age of 80, the group also completed a life satisfaction scale assessing their current level of happiness.

The findings showed no association between levels of mental ability and reported happiness. Neither child-hood IQ, IQ at 79, or any change in IQ over a lifetime was related to how satisfied respondents were with how their lives turned out. Gow suggested that the results are surprising because intelligence is highly valued in society. He speculated that, despite having a much valued quality, intelligent people may worry more about achievement and possibly compare themselves with others and the wiser choices that might have been made.

The researchers plan to continue studying these senior citizens to examine possible relationships between changes in cognitive function and happiness in advancing old age. (The discussion of emotion in the text and these resources will more closely examine important correlates of life satisfaction.)

Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., Whalley, L., Starr, J., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Lifetime intellectual func-tion and satisfaction with life in old age: Longitudinal cohort study. British Medical Journal, 331, 141–142.

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Intelligence Test Scores and the CourtsTo extend your discussion of intellectual disability, ask students to imagine that they are sitting on a jury assigned the task of sentencing a man who has been convicted of first-degree murder. The question before the jury is one of sentencing. Should he be sentenced to death or life in prison? The state’s law says that any-one with an intellectual disability cannot be executed. What evidence would your students need in determin-ing whether he has an intellectual disability? Would an intelligence score suffice? Intelligence scores from multiple testing? Or other evidence of intellectual abil-ity? If so, what?

After students have an opportunity to discuss the issue, present them with this information from a U.S. Supreme Court case.

In 1978, Freddie Lee Hall and an accomplice “kidnapped, beat, raped, and killed” a young, pregnant woman in Florida (Colb, 2014). Hall was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that executing anyone with an intellectual disability was cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court left the definition of “intellectual disability” up to each state to define (Colb, 2014). Florida opted to define it as an IQ score of 70 or lower; that’s two standard deviations below the mean on the WAIS. Hall was given three intelligence tests, and his scores reliably fell between 71 and 80 (Larsen, 2013). Other “bright line” states, states with a solid cut-off IQ number, are Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware (Reardon & Nature Magazine, 2014).

In the majority opinion, issued in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that no test is so precise that a number can be used for a cut-off in determining whether someone lives or dies. Rather, when the intel-ligence test score is close to the cut-off, other evidence of intellectual ability should also be considered. For example, In Hall’s case, his family and friends reported how he was, in effect, tortured by his mother as a child for being “slow.” For example, she would poke him with sticks while pointing a gun at him.

In the dissenting opinion, the justices felt that by allowing the convicted to take an intelligence test multi-ple times, Florida was eliminating concerns about errors in measurement (Colb, 2014). However, psychological scientists note that some intelligence tests can vary five points in either direction, and that not all intelligence tests are equal. The WAIS, for example, includes only a few questions that target the lower range of intellectual ability (Reardon & Nature Magazine, 2014).

Because these tests were never designed to deter-mine whether convicted murderers should live or die, should states use different criteria, as Texas has done? In 2004, the Texas Court of Appeals created their own criteria for determining intellectual ability. Called Briseño factors, named for the court case that generated them, these criteria include having friends and family who think he or she is intellectually disabled, if he or she cannot make plans, if he or she is more of a fol-lower than a leader, if his or her behavior is irrational, if his or her response to questions is irrational, if he or she cannot lie, and if the crime of which he or she is accused did not take “forethought, planning, and com-plex execution.” If the answer to any of these questions is No, he or she is deemed fit for execution (Smith, 2013).

The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) argues that the criteria are completely subjective and are based on ste-reotypes, not science.

Intelligence 15

In concluding this discussion, ask students to spend a few minutes in small groups generating questions that they, as potential jurors (or judges or attorneys) in such cases, would like psychological science to answer about intellectual disability that would inform decisions in such criminal court cases. Invite students to share some of their questions with the rest of the class.

Colb, S. F. (2014, June 10). The U.S. Supreme Court narrows states’ discretion to execute the intel-lectually disabled. Retrieved from verdict.justia.com/2014/06/10/u-s-supreme-court-narrows-states- discretion-execute-intellectually-disabled.

Larsen, J. P. (2013, October 21). Supreme Court to look at death row inmate with low IQ. CBSNews. Retrieved from www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-to-look-at-death-row-inmate-with-low-iq.

Reardon, S., & Nature Magazine. (2014, February 20). Debate on who is smart enough to be executed. Scientific American. Retrieved from www.scientificamerican.com/article/debate-on-who-is-smart-enough-to-be-executed.

Smith, J. (2013, April 19). Smart enough to die. The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved from www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-04-19/smart-enough-to-die.

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Intelligence

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Reaction Time, Intelligence, and Longevity

Some research has indicated that intelligence predicts longevity. In one study, Ian Deary and Geoff Der (2005) report that reaction time may explain why lower IQ is associated with earlier death.

The researchers followed a sample of 898 adults from age 56 until age 70. They measured general intel-ligence and simple and choice reaction times and identi-fied a variety of demographic and lifestyle factors and, of course, survival. By the end of the study, 185 (99 men, 86 women) had died. The results indicated that intelligence tested at age 56 was significantly related to being alive or dead 14 years later. This association remained after adjusting for differences in smoking, education, and social class as possible confounding variables.

Simple and choice reaction times assessed at age 56 were also significantly associated with mortality in the following 14 years. And once again, smoking, education, and social class had little effect on the strength of this relationship. Reaction times were actu-ally stronger predictors of mortality than was intel-ligence; perhaps, most important, the effect of IQ on mortality was no longer significant after adjusting for reaction time. Deary and Der conclude that these results suggest that a reduced efficiency in information pro-

cessing may be the crucial link between lower mental ability and death.

The investigators indicate that future research may help us better understand the relationships between IQ, reaction time, and longevity. For example, is the relationship between IQ and longevity one that appears only in middle age and actually as a precursor of physi-ological decline? Or is this relationship one that is char-acteristic of healthy people throughout life, for instance, showing itself even in young, healthy adults? Studies that answer this question (by examining these relation-ships in younger age groups) may help in formulating effective interventions that promote health and longevity.

Deary, I. J., & Der, G. (2005). Reaction time explains IQ’s association with death. Psychological Science, 16, 64–69.

Classroom Exercise: Mindset

People who believe that intelligence is an unchanging quality that you have believe in a fixed mindset. People who see intelligence as something that can change over time with effort have a growth mindset. Those with a growth mindset tend to be more persistent and self-motivating (Farrington, et.al., 2012).

In one study, freshmen college students were reminded that it is common for students to struggle in their first year and that those struggles did not mean that they lacked innate ability. Compared with students who did not receive this message, the students had higher GPAs a year later as compared with those who were not given that message.

In another study, college students were instructed to write letters that were supposed to encourage middle school students in school. The following term, those who were asked to specifically write about the malle-ability of intelligence had higher GPAs the following term than those who were not given this information.

Even small interventions can have a big impact (Walton, 2014). For example, when middle school stu-dents learned about the brain and how neural networks in the brain can be strengthened with use, their scores in math increased.

Handout 7, designed by Carol Dweck (1999), assesses the degree to which respondents believe that their own intelligence is changeable. To obtain a total score, students should first reverse the numbers they placed in front of statements 3, 5, 7, and 8 (change 1 to 6, 2 to 5, 3 to 4, 4 to 3, 5 to 2, and 6 to 1). Then they should add up the numbers in front of all eight state- ments. Scores range from 8 to 48. Scores below the midpoint of 28 reflect the belief that one’s intelligence is fixed (fixed mindset); scores above 28 indicate the belief that one’s intelligence is malleable (growth mindset).

16 Intelligence

Suggest that students who scored in the direction of a fixed mindset should reflect back on the text’s neuro-science chapter. Our brains are not set in stone.

As an assignment, consider a partial replication of the letter-writing study. Ask students to write a let-ter to the students who will be taking Introduction to Psychology with you next term. In the letter, students should write what they have learned about how intel-ligence is malleable, not fixed.

Farrington, C.A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., et al. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school perfor-mance: A critical literature review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psycho-logical interventions.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 73–82.

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Misunderstanding Heritability

Heritability is one of the most misunderstood concepts in psychology. You will want to review the concept slowly and carefully and attempt to correct common misconceptions. It may be best to begin with definitions of heritability and environmentality.

If you did not use the Classroom Exercise, “Explaining Heritability” in the Nature, Nurture, and Human Diversity unit, you may choose to use it here.

Heritability refers to the proportion of phenotypic variance (say, the observed individual differences in height, weight, or intelligence within a group) that is attributable to genotypic variance (individual dif-ferences in the total collection of genes possessed by each person). Thus, a heritability of 0.50 means that 50 percent of the phenotypic variation is attributable to genotypic variation. Environmentality refers to the percentage of observed variation in a group of individu-als that can be attributed to environmental (nongenetic) influences. In the simplest scenario (where there would be no interaction between genetic and environmental factors), heritability of 0.30 means environmentality of 0.70.

Randy Larsen and David Buss (2008) attempt to correct three common misconceptions about heritabil-ity. First, heritability never refers to a single individual. It makes no sense to say, “Tracey’s height is 90 percent heritable.” For any individual, genes and environment are inextricably interwoven. Heritability refers only to differences in a sample or population and never to a given individual.

Second, heritability is not constant. Heritability, explain Larsen and Buss, is a statistic that only applies to a population at one point in time and in a particu-

lar array of environments. Thus, heritability does not always generalize across persons and places. For exam-ple, it is possible for heritability to be high in one group (say, Swedes) but low in another (say, Nigerians). Moreover, heritability can be low at one time and high at another. It always depends on the range of genetic and environmental differences in the population.

Finally, heritability is not an absolutely precise sta-tistic in part because it is generally computed using cor-relations, which fluctuate from one sample to another. This and measurement errors make these statistics unre-liable and easily subject to error. Thus, heritability is best thought of as merely an estimate of the percentage of phenotypic differences due to genetic differences.

You might remind your students (as Larsen and Buss remind their readers) that at the level of the indi-vidual there is no nature–nurture debate. Each person is a product of an inseparable intertwining of genes and environment. It is nonsense for anyone to ask, “Are genes or environment more important in accounting for Andrew?” Baking a cake provides a good analogy. Each cake consists of flour, sugar, eggs, and water. It is nonsense to ask whether the finished cake is “caused” more by the flour or the sugar. Both are necessary ingredients, inextricably combined and thus inseparable in the baked cake.

At the level of a population we can begin to sort out the influence of genes and environment. We may ask, “Which is more important in accounting for indi-vidual differences in intelligence—genetic differences or environmental differences?” It is comparable to ask-ing, “If you bake 50 cakes and these turn out to taste a little different from one another, what accounts for the differences among the cakes? It is appropriate to ask “Are differences in sweetness between the cakes caused by differences in the amount of flour used or by differ-ences in the amount of sugar used?”

Similarly, it makes sense to talk about differences in heritability for various physical differences among people. Individual differences in height show a herita-bility of about 0.90, individual differences in weight a heritability of about 0.50, and individual differences in mate preferences (what we look for in a marriage part-ner) a heritability of roughly 0.10. Therefore, it is cor-rect to say that genetic differences are more important than environmental differences when it comes to height and roughly the same when it comes to weight. In con-trast, environmental differences are overwhelmingly important when it comes to mate preferences.

Larsen, R., & Buss, D. (2008). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Intelligence 17

Group Differences in Intelligence Test Scores

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Environmental Explanation of Group Differences

The existence of hereditary variation within a group does not necessitate a hereditary explanation for the differences between groups. An example of this is provided by Stephen Jay Gould. He argues that even if intelligence were 70 percent heritable, this would not prove that racial or cultural differences were genetic. For example, height is about 95 percent heritable. Imag-ine now, he says, a group of malnourished Africans whose average height is several inches less than that of North Americans. The Africans would not remain shorter if they were properly fed. Similarly, the aver-age height in Japan has increased several inches since World War II, but no one argues that the Japanese gene pool has changed.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.

Classroom Exercise: Culture-Biased and Culture-Fair Tests

In response to the criticism that tests are culturally biased, several psychologists have attempted to devise instruments that are culture-fair. The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) assesses individual intelligence in a manner designed to reduce, as much as possible, the influence of verbal fluency, cultural climate, and educational level. Presumably, the test permits a cleaner separation of natural ability from specific learning and thus enables a better analysis and prediction of the indi-vidual’s ultimate potential.

Handout 8 contains four sample items from Scale 2, Form A of the CFIT. These items are used to intro-duce each of the four tests that comprise the scale. Instruct students to examine the thinking processes they use to arrive at the correct answers. Read the following instructions for each item.

1. “Look at the first item. See how the black part moves. It begins at the top and moves around the circle. Look at the five choices for the right answer. Which one is it? (Pause.) Yes, it’s number ‘1.’ Put ‘1’ in the empty box.”

2. “Look at the second item. There are five figures in a row. Four are the same and one is different in some way from all the others. Which one is it? (Pause.) Yes, it’s the first one. It’s black and all the others are white. Put ‘1’ in the empty box.”

3. “Look at the third item. There are four small boxes in the large square at the left. (Point.) One of them is dotted and empty. Which one of the five boxes on the right (point) is the correct one to fill in the dotted empty box? (Pause.) Yes, it’s ‘4.’ Put ‘4’ in the empty box.”

4. “Look at the fourth item. In the separate box at the left (point) the dot is inside the egg-shaped figure, but under the line. Now we have to find another box where we can do just the same. Which one is it? (Pause.) Yes, the second. That’s the only right one. Put ‘2’ in the empty box.”

Lecture/Discussion Topic: Intelligence as Culturally DefinedIntelligence is a socially constructed concept. Cultures deem “intelligent” whatever attributes enable success in their culture. Psychologists who view intelligence as the successful adaptation to the environment are skeptical about the prospects for a “culture-free” test of intelligence. They maintain that tests designed for one culture are notoriously faulty when applied to another. Anthropologist Joseph Glick’s study of Liberia’s Kpelle people provides a classic and amusing example (Cole, et al., 1971). Glick asked them to sort a group of objects sensibly. To his puzzlement, they insisted on grouping the objects by function (for example, placing a potato with a hoe) rather than by taxonomy (placing the potato with other foods). On the basis of Western standards, this indicated an inferior style of sorting and lower intelligence. After Glick demonstrated the “cor-rect” answer, one of the Kpelle people remarked that only a stupid person would sort things that way. When Glick thereafter asked tribesmen to sort items the way a stupid person would, they sorted them taxonomically without hesitation or difficulty.

Robert Sternberg and James Kaufman (1998) show how, in contrast to Western cultures, African and Asian cultures are much more likely to emphasize social skills in their conception of intelligence. For example, in collectivist cultures, intelligence includes skills that help to establish and maintain harmonious and stable intergroup relations. Chewa adults in Zambia empha-size social responsibility, cooperation, and obedience as important to intelligence. Intelligent children are expected to be respectful to adults. Simi larly Kenyan parents emphasize responsible participation in family and social life as important aspects of intelligence. In Zimbabwe, the word for intelligence, ngware, means to be prudent and cautious, particularly in social relation-ships.

Etienne Benson (2003) notes that Kenyans identify four components of intelligence: rieko (most similar to the Western idea of intelligence), luoro (social skills, including respect and responsibility), paro (practi-cal thinking, perhaps what some would call “street smarts”), and winjo (comprehension). Interestingly, those who scored high on paro tended to score low on rieko.

18 Intelligence

Benson, E. (2003, February). Intelligence across cultures. Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved from www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx.

Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books.

Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998). Human abili-ties. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 479–502). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Artificial Intelligence

Classroom Exercise/Podcast: Simulating Intelligence and Other Human Traits

The possibility that we may someday produce artificial life forms or simulate human intelligence, sentience, or empathy in man-made machines has intrigued human-kind for quite some time. At one time, this subject was relegated to the realm of mere science fiction. This is no longer the case. Technological advances in com-puter engineering, coupled with gains in the scientific understanding of human cognition and neuropsychol-ogy, have brought these dreams closer to reality. Your students may be interested to learn about how these developments are progressing.

“RadioLab” is a radio show and podcast produced by WNYC with the purpose of presenting interest-ing and enigmatic scientific issues. Hosted by Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad, the program has the feel of a radio documentary and often features interviews, case studies, and (sometimes) dramatizations of scientific principles, discoveries, and research. Most episodes are an hour in total and typically broken up into three or more segments.

The RadioLab episode that aired May 31, 2011 (Season 10, Episode 1) dealt with human-computer interactions. It included three segments highlight-ing some amazing advances in attempts to develop machines that mimic human intelligence, empathy, and

consciousness. The first segment, “Clever Bots,” covers the design and development of a simulated “therapist.” The second segment is about “Furbies,” one of the first mass-produced interactive toys on the market in the late 1990s. The final segment, “Everyone Has a Solar,” is about the purportedly first “sentient” robot, Bina48, which was modeled after a real woman named Bina Rothblatt.

Your students might find it interesting to search the Internet for interactive AI demonstrations or simu-lations. For example, students can “chat” with the Cleverbot program described above at http://cleverbot.com. They can also try their hand at a “Rock-Paper-Scissors” game with a computer hosted by the New York Times website: www.nytimes.com/interactive/science/rock-paper-scissors.html. In this game, users can set the parameters to have the computer learn from them as a novice, or they can play against an “expert” computer that makes use of the information it has gleaned from more than 200,000 rounds of the game with other users.

Fans of the Star Trek: The Next Generation televi-sion series may recall an episode in which the android Data grapples with the question of what defines life and sentience as he works with a series of small robotic machines. Called “Exocomps,” the machines were cre-ated to assist in the repair and maintenance of a mining tunnel; they were designed to dynamically adapt to the conditions in which they are working. Titled “The Quality of Life” (Season 6, Episode 9), the episode centers on the issue of whether self-protective behaviors and decision making are minimum criteria for entities (whether living or artificial) to be afforded the oppor-tunity to decide for themselves what they will do, and how and when they do so. The content of this episode would provide good fodder for discussion about the nature of AI; the moral, ethical, and legal implications of simulation work; and speculation about what future developments in AI may bring.

Intelligence 19

HANDOUT 1

What We Know About Intelligence

Instructions: Answer True or False to each of the following statements by circling the T or the F below.

T F 1. Intelligence is made up of subsystems; it’s not a single thing.

T F 2. Intelligence won’t help you get ahead in life if you grow up in poverty.

T F 3. Intelligence is more important for success than motivation.

T F 4. People who are high in intelligence have bigger retinal blood vessels.

T F 5. People who are high in intelligence are more likely to go to sleep earlier and get up earlier than people who are low in intelligence.

T F 6. People who are high in intelligence are happier.

Source: Dean, J. (2013, November 26). 10 Smart Studies that Help Unlock the Mysteries of Intelligence. Retrieved from www.spring.org.uk/2013/11/10-smart-studies-that-help-unlock-the-mysteries-of-intelligence.php.

20 Intelligence

HANDOUT 2

Gardner’s Categories of Intelligence

Category Description Career Example

Linguistic The ability to use language, sensitivity to the order of things. People strong in this area can argue, persuade, entertain, or instruct through the spoken word.

Logical- The ability to see the intelligence of mathematical numbers and logic, ability to handle chains of reasoning and to recognize patterns and order. People strong in this area think in terms of cause and effect and can create and test hypotheses.

Musical Sensitivity to pitch, melody, rhythm, and tone. People strong in this area can sing in tune, keep time to music and listen to musical selections with discernment.

Bodily- The ability to use the body skillfully kinesthetic and handle objects adroitly. These are hands-on people with good tactile sensitivity.

Spatial The ability to perceive the world accurately and to recreate or transform aspects of that world. People strong in this area often have acute sensitivity to visual details, can draw their ideas graphically, and can orient themselves easily in 3-D space.

Interpersonal The ability to understand people and relationships. People strong in this area can perceive and respond to moods, temperaments, intentions, and the desires of others.

Intrapersonal Access to one’s emotional life as a means of understanding oneself and others. People strong in this area can easily access their own feelings, discriminate among different emotional states, and use this to enrich and guide their own lives.

Naturalist The ability to understand, categorize, and explain patterns encountered in the natural world. People strong in this area observe, interpret, and construct meaning from the natural world.

Intelligence 21

HANDOUT 3

Charles and Margaret are both engineers and have been married for 5 years. Three years ago, Charles was offered a job in Europe. Margaret agreed to quit her job in the United States and move to Europe with Charles. The job was an excellent career move for Charles. Soon after the move they had a baby. After the birth, Margaret decided to start working again and, with effort, found a very exciting job that paid well and promised real security. Meanwhile, Charles was offered a transfer back to the United States. Margaret feels she needs another year or two in her new job to meaningfully advance her career. She is also tired of mov-ing. She has already given up a lot of time following Charles around. Charles knows that his wife’s job is as important as his own but he thinks returning to the United States would help both their careers in the end. What should Charles do?

Source: R. J. Sternberg, Wisdom, schooling, and society. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Copyright © 2002. Reprinted by permission of Dr. Robert Sternberg.

22 Intelligence

HANDOUT 4

Self-Transcendence Inventory

We would like to know whether your view of life is different today than it was five years ago. We would appreciate your reading the statements listed below and indicating the extent to which you agree with each one. Use the following scale:

1 = disagree strongly 2 = disagree somewhat 3 = agree somewhat 4 = agree strongly

1. My peace of mind is not so easily upset as it used to be.

2. Material things mean less to me.

3. I do not become angry as easily.

4. My sense of self is less dependent on other people and things.

5. I feel much more compassionate, even toward my enemies.

6. I find more joy in life.

7. I am more likely to engage in quiet contemplation.

8. I feel a greater state of belonging with both earlier and future generations

9. I feel that my individual life is a part of a greater whole.

10. I have become less concerned about other people’s opinions of me.

Source: From Michael R. Levenson, PhD. “Self-Transcendence Inventory” originally published in Levinson, et al. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. Copyright © 2005 Baywood Publishing. Reprinted by permission.

Intelligence 23

HANDOUT 5

World War I Intelligence Test

Match your wits with World War I–era recruits with the following questions from actual army intelligence tests. Circle the letter in front of the correct answer.

24 Intelligence

1. Bull Durham is the name of a A. chewing gum B. aluminum ware C. tobacco D. clothing 2. Seven-up is played with A. rackets B. cards C. pins D. dice 3. The Merino is a kind of A. horse B. sheep C. goat D. cow

4. The most prominent industry of Minneapolis is A. flour B. packing C. automobiles D. brewing

5. Garnets are usually A. yellow B. blue C. green D. red 6. The Orpington is a kind of A. fowl B. horse C. granite D. cattle 7. George Ade is famous as a A. baseball player B. comic artist C. actor D. author

8. Soap is made by A. B. T. Babbitt B. Smith & Wesson C. W. L. Douglas D. Swift & Co. 9. Laura Jean Libby is known as a A. singer B. suffragist C. writer D. army nurse 10. An air-cooled engine is used in the A. Buick B. Packard C. Franklin D. Ford 11. A house is better than a tent, because A. it costs more B. it is more comfortable C. it is made of wood 12. Why does it pay to get a good education? A. it makes a man more useful and happy B. it makes work for teachers C. it makes demand for buildings for schools and

colleges 13. If the grocer should give you too much money in

making change, what is the right thing to do? A. buy some candy off him with it B. give it to the first poor man you meet C. tell him of his mistake 14. Why should food be chewed before swallowing? A. it is better for the health B. it is bad manners to swallow without chewing C. chewing keeps the teeth in condition

HANDOUT 5 (continued)

15. If you saw a train approaching a broken track, you should

A. telephone for an ambulance B. signal the engineer to stop the train C. look for a piece of rail to fit in 16. If you are lost in a forest in the daytime, what is

the thing to do? A. hurry to the nearest house you know of B. look for something to eat C. use the sun or a compass for a guide 17. It is better to fight than to run, because A. cowards are shot B. it is more honorable C. if you run you may get shot in the back

18. Why should all parents be made to send their chil-dren to school? Because

A. it prepares them for adult life B. it keeps them out of mischief C. they are too young to work 19. Why do some men who could afford to own a

house live in a rented one? Because A. they don’t have to pay taxes B. they don’t have to buy a rented house C. they can make more by investing the money

the house would cost 20. Why is beef better food than cabbage? Because A. it tastes better B. it is more nourishing C. it is harder to obtain

Intelligence 25

Source: Reprinted by permission of the American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning. The Graduate Center. CUNY. historymatters@gmu.edu.

HANDOUT 6a

Source: From Griggs, R. A., “A one-minute “intelligence” test,” Teaching of Psychology, 27, 132–135. Copyright © 2000 SAGE Publications. Reprinted by permission of Richard A. Griggs and SAGE Publications.

26 Intelligence

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

SAND MANBOARD

STANDI R E A D I N G

WEAR LONG

R A DROAD

TOWN

CYCLECYCLECYCLE

LE VEL

OM.DPh.DB.S.

LIGHTSKNEE

CHAIR DICEDICE

TOUCH

GROUNDFEETFEETFEETFEETFEETFEET

MINDMATTER HE'S/HIMSELF ECNALG DEATH/LIFE

GIC C CC CC

PROGRAMBLOUSE

JUST

YOU ME

HANDOUT 6b

Source: From Griggs, R. A., “A one-minute “intelligence” test,” Teaching of Psychology, 27, 132–135. Copyright © 2000 SAGE Publications. Reprinted by permission of Richard A. Griggs and SAGE Publications..

Intelligence 27

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

TIMINGTIM ING

HOM UALLSNOW

ALL World

NEVES

CNO WAYS IT WAYS

JUS 144 TICE 1 3 5 7 9WHELMING (CAPITALISM) ASTRO ∅

AM U OUS WWOOIOfLNaCI - H2ONaCI - H2O

No No No NoRENT RENT

REASWHATSOEVER

WHEATHER

E ONE ANOTHERONE ANOTHERONE ANOTHERONE ANOTHERONE ANOTHERONE ANOTHER

SYMPHON BLOOD WATER

ON SGEG EILN PU

HE'S

CCCCCCC

A

SAS

FRIEND FRIENDS

STAND

NOW REHE

HANDOUT 7

Theories of Intelligence Scale

This questionnaire has been designed to investigate the ideas about intelligence. There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in your ideas.

Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by writing the number that corresponds to your opinion in the space next to each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Agree Mostly Mostly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

1. You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can’t really do much to change it.

2. Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much.

3. No matter who you are, you can significantly change your intelligence.

4. To be honest, you can’t really change how intelligent you are.

5. You can always substantially change how intelligent you are.

6. You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic intelligence.

7. No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit.

8. You can change even your basic intelligence level considerably.

Source: From C. S. Dweck, Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development (p. 178). Copyright © 1999 Taylor & Francis Inc. Reprinted by permission

28 Intelligence

HANDOUT 8

Culture Fair Intelligence Test

Source: Sample Tests from Scale 2 of the Culture Fair Intelligence Test. Reprinted by permission of Hogrefe Ltd.

Intelligence 29