PSY/450 Diversity and Cultural
Factors in Psychology
Intelligence testing has long been a controversial task of
recognizing the cognitive processes by which people acquire and apply
knowledge; specifically “recognition, categorization, thinking and
memor[ization]” (Shiraev & Levy, 2010, p. 121). Regardless, cross-culturally intelligence is
tested, even at the earliest of ages in infancy, in an effort to identify when
and where intelligence stems (but reliability and validity of infant tests
remain questionable). Peterson (1922)
describes intelligence as “one’s ability to be affected by a wide range of
circumstances and to delay reaction …with respect to their bearing on the
attainment of any particular end” (p. 388).
With that in mind, it is possible to see how general intelligence and
multiple intelligence theories are viewed and evaluated when testing is applied
to children.
General Intelligence
Theory
In trying to explain the differences among individuals using
the general intelligence theory or g
theory, Charles Spearman (1863-1945) suggests that human intelligence is
portrayed as some type of measureable energy.
As such, he led the quest for tests that could measure the g factors correlating to others in
deeming intelligence levels common to all tests (Loh, n.d.). Thus, if someone’s IQ scores are high on one
test he or she will typically score high on other IQ tests and vice versa if
his or her scores are low. That stated,
“Lewis and McGurk argue for the failure of any predictive power in present
tests of infant intelligence” …but indicate such tests “may [only] reflect [an]
infant’s current mental capacity” (McGlannan, Matteny Jr, Wilson, Lewis, & McGurk, 1974, p. 37). Bayley, according to McGlannan, et. al.,
(1974), argues that rapid growth of intelligence during the infancy period as
the reason for the inability to measure stable, predictable g factors in the very young, which could
reinforce a skills based intelligence rather than an innate ability.
Multiple Intelligence
Theory
First
proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983, his work initially suggests that there are
seven types of intelligence: Linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical
intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, spatial
intelligence, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligence. However, after additional research, Gardner
and his colleagues considered adding additional intelligences under the
umbrella of multiple intelligences (MI).
They are naturalist intelligence, spiritual intelligence, moral
intelligence, and existential intelligence, but to Gardner only naturalist
intelligence adds the core values that describe intelligence, thus increasing
his MI list to eight intelligences (Smith, 2008). As mentioned, while testing during infancy may
have little or no predictive validity; such tests may have a high validity on
measuring a child’s cognitive abilities. Although, the processes by which one acquires intelligences
vary based on a person’s “environmental, social, psychological, and cultural
circumstances,” corroborating Gardner’s ideals of eight levels or avenues, if
you will, of developing intelligence (Cole, et. al., 1971, as restated by Shiraev
& Levy, 2010, p. 127).
Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Intelligence Testing
Cross-culturally intelligence testing itself can prove to be
difficult as testing formats are largely provided in Western terminology and do
not account for language, economic, nor cultural variables. Shiraev and Levy (2010) provide an example of
internal bias as familiar ethnic group verbiage, leading to higher scores for
one group over another. Furnham and
McClelland (2009) concur that “word usage in verbal intelligence testing has a
significant effect on test scores” (p. 544). By changing a single word to a high frequency
word (e.g., from precede to before), more people are able to comprehend
quicker, thus achieving higher scores.
Therefore, when evaluating intelligence there are many things that must
be considered culturally, such as one’s cultural vocabulary, cultural literacy,
cognitive style, and age. After all,
“the people, as representatives of a particular culture, define intelligence”
(Shiraev & Levy, 2010, p. 135).
Conclusion
Regardless of whether one believes there is a single
determining g factor to intelligence or a series of eight MIs, the
process of uncovering someone’s mental abilities and capacity to problem-solve
can be challenging. Rapid growth in
infancy makes it difficult to validate Spearman’s theories about general
intelligence (g theory) at such a
young age, according to the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (McGlannan, et.
al., 1974). While Gardner’s theories
branch out to allow for more diverse intellectual abilities: linguistic,
logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal,
intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligence; thus taking into account the
cognitive processes of intelligence. While
evaluating intelligence testing in general can be difficult because of the many
biases, applying IQ testing to infants is controversial and unreliable for any
predictive use of intelligence. However,
that does not mean changes in the future will not make such testing’s highly
affective and useful so that globally everyone’s intellectual opportunities can
improve.
No comments:
Post a Comment