Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
110 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is intelligence? |
Definition is argued across cultures and societies Western cultures - speed - e.g. how long it takes to solve a problem Non western - ability to solve problems within context of family/friends |
|
|
In the beginning |
Homer – relationship between looks + thinking Aristotle – quick wit = intelligence Plato + Soctrates – intelligence block of wax varying in shape, hardness, moistness, purity Intelligence used as adjective + explanatory - behavedor was beingrather than having intelligence |
|
|
In the beginning |
Galton – evolutionary – intelligence in terms of speed of response to stimuli Introduced idea of intelligence as a heritable quality Quicker response to astimulus = intelligence –competition, fittest, quickest, survival, natural selection. |
|
|
Shift in views |
Towards scientific approach 19th/20th French gov concerned with schooling Binet + Simon (1905) given task of developing method of identifying children in need of remedial educational support – first attempt of measuring intelligence |
|
|
Intelligence Tests 1 |
Binet + Simon - intelligence is general attribute found in different spheres of cognitive functioning Test for children (3-11) 30 subtasks varying in content + difficulty – copy drawing, repeat string of digits, understand a story Determines mental age and whether they’re backwards/advanced |
|
|
1921 Definition of Intelligence |
Journal of Educational Psychology Symposium Having certain abilities such as ability to carry out abstract thinking and ability to adjust to new situations/environments |
|
|
1986 Definition of Intelligence |
Contemporary panel of experts – similar to 1921 symposium e.g. person should have basic mental processes, adapt to envi, higher order thinking e.g. reasoning, problem solving, decision making |
|
|
Intelligence seen as |
Cog power ‘g’ behind various mental skills Individs possess varying amounts Higher score in IQ tests = more intelligence Predictive of future academic performance |
|
|
Intelligence Tests 2 |
Binet approach moved to USA Terman 1916 modified Binet’s Test to Stanford-Binet test – added 40 extra items <- modification indicate cultural difference between French + American societies? Brought this + idea of IQ together to advance approach and proliferation of intelligence tests began |
|
|
IQ Concept |
Developed by Stern 1912 Represented by formula IQ = metal age + chronological age / 100 |
|
|
Intelligence Tests 3 |
Yerkes - first test - WW1 needs to assess and classify soldiers to suitable tasks Developed group of tests in simple and quick format – alpha test for literate recruits to examine oral + written language, beta for illiterate Sort into branches of army, level of training to be given, rank to be accorded at entry |
|
|
Advancing IQ tests |
Previous have been for practical purposes for particular needs Spearman 1904 + 1927 went statistical |
|
|
Factor analysis |
Developed by Spearman to establish relationships between various elements of intelligence Quantification of this relationship led to a measure that indicated ‘general’ (g) intelligence |
|
|
‘g' – Theory of Cognitive Intelligence |
Positive correlation of performance on various intelligence tests Called this a ‘positive-manifold’ - propose two-factor theory of intelligence ‘s’-factor = specific abilities needed for performing well on each diff intelligence task e.g. maths ‘g’-factor = general, intelligence required for performance of tests for all types – most important |
|
|
‘g’ Links |
Idea that there was a general intelligence that was tested by measures of intelligence led to other concepts coming together: Galton’s Heritability – nature over nurture, favour of selection of high achievers in these tests in selective education and employment Social policy – 1944 education act introduction of 11 plus exams |
|
|
Measuring ‘g’ – Wechler’sInstruments |
WAIS and WISC – based on various subtests of verbal and performance types including arithmetic, digital span, picture arrangement Deviation IQ = actual test score / expected score for that age x 100 Verbal + Non Verbal Use in workplace |
|
|
Measuring ‘g’ – Raven’s Progressive Matrices |
Visual patterns shown, respondents ascertain relationships between them by selecting appropriate object to complete set of patterns Just non verbal Use in workplace |
|
|
Alternative Approaches to Intelligence |
Thurstone’s (1938) Primary Abilities Cattell’s (1966) Two Factor approach Gardner’s (1983) Multiple intelligences Sternberg’s (1985) Triarchic model |
|
|
Thurstone Primary Abilities |
First real multifactor approach Against Spearman – ‘g’ is the factor behind different cog abilities, said instead 7 primary abilities are responsible for general intelligence Abilities – word fluency, verbal meaning, number, memory, inductive reasoning, spatial perception, perceptual speed Independent but interlocking abilities |
|
|
Cattell Two Factor Approach |
‘g’ consists of two related distinct components Fluid intelligence (Gf) performance on relatively culture free tasks - inherited + free of situational influence - e.g. innovation and creativity Crystalised intelligence (Gc) tasks requiring knowledge + skills accumulated through experience – hence culture specific Age considered a factor in manifestation |
|
|
Cattell related to IQ |
Weschlertests look at Gc –things that are culture specific and advanced through things such as education Raven matrix (nonverbal) related to Gf |
|
|
Gardner Multiple Intelligence |
Intelligence not singular – each person has a unique set of intelligences Vary in development within and among individuals Intelligences are separate but can work at the same time e.g. can sing and dance together Components also branch out e.g. musical ability could be singing or playing piano |
|
|
Multiple Intelligences |
Linguistic Logics-Mathematical Musical Intra-personal -own behaviour/aspectsof the self/personality Inter-personal -relating to others Bodily-kinesthetic Spatial |
|
|
Multiple Intelligences |
Addedtwo more – Naturalistic + Existential (ultimate issues) Nolink between factors, no g – all work separately and can’t predict each otherIntelligencecan be measured through general IQ tests, should also assess through activitiesto test other factors Minimalevidence to support, still widely renowned |
|
|
Sternberg Triarchic Approach - 3 sub theories |
Componential – internal world of the individual, specifies cog processes involved in intelligence Meta-components- recognise a problem Performance components- solving the problem Knowledge-acquisition components- Selective coding/commination/comparison Measured by traditional intelligence tests |
|
|
Sternberg Triarchic Approach - 3 sub theories |
Contextual– intelligence in external world, cog processes in everyday life Measuredthrough tests measuring tacit knowledge Adaptation Shaping Selection |
|
|
Sternberg Triarchic Approach - 3 sub theories |
Experiential – concerned with internal-external world interface – intelligence based on experience Novelty Automation |
|
|
Sternberg Triarchic Approach - 3 sub theories |
Underlying the three sub theories there are abilities of intelligence Analytical–developing + using new strategies Creative–solving new kinds of problems in innovative ways Practical–using existing knowledge + skills Allunderlined by social competence, verbal, practical, & problem solvingabilities |
|
|
What is Emotional Intelligence |
The ability to recognise and regulate emotions in ourselves and others |
|
|
Mayer and Salovey 1997 Definition |
The ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions, and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth |
|
|
Bar-On 1997 Definition |
Understanding oneself and others, relating to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands |
|
|
Ability Models |
Regard EI as a pure form of mental ability and thus as a pure intelligence - Accurately perceiving emotions - Using emotions to facilitate thinking - Understanding emotional meaning - Managing emotions |
|
|
Salovey & Mayer: Four Branch Model |
Divided into two areas: Experiential - ability to perceive, respond, and manipulate emotional information without necessarily understanding it Strategic - ability to understand and manage emotions without necessarily perceiving feelings well or fully experiencing them |
|
|
Four Branch Model Order of Sophistication |
|
|
|
Cont. |
Managing Branch: reflective regulation of emotion to promote emotional+intellectual growth Understanding Branch: Unders+analysing emotions, employing emotional knowledge Facilitating Branch: Emotional facilitation of thinking Perceiving Branch: Perception appraisal+expression of emotion |
|
|
EI Measure (MSCEIT) |
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI Test 141 items for 17yrs + Aims to measure 4 abilities of four branch model Each score expressed in terms of standard intelligence EIQ score 69 or less = 'considerable development' 130+ = 'significant strength' |
|
|
MSCEIT Cont. |
Eight individual tasks - 2 for each branch Emotional perception measured by asking participants to identify emotions in faces + landscapes Emotional understanding measured by understanding how emotions blend |
|
|
Mixed Models of EI |
Combine mental ability with personality characteristics such as optimism and well-being Two models: Daniel Goleman vs Reuven Bar-On |
|
|
Daniel Goleman |
Focuseson performance integrating an individual's abilities and personality andapplying their corresponding effects on performance in the workplace |
|
|
Reuven Bar-On |
Emphasises the co-dependence of the abilityaspects of EI with personality traits and theirapplication to personal well-being |
|
|
Goleman More Detailed |
1995 Wrote landmark book - emotional intelligence Linked EI to amygdala - fight/flight central to EI, as we develop we learn to control these two basic emotions Individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies |
|
|
Goleman's Hierarchy |
|
|
|
Emotional Competencies |
|
|
|
Emotional Competence Inventory - Measurement Tools |
-Emotional Competence Inventory 2.0 (ECI) - assessor asked to rate person in terms of how characteristic they are of the abilities listed in the model, individuals present themselves in an assured forceful impressive unhesitating manner -Work Profile Questionnaire of EI - measures 7 competencies most essential for effective work performance |
|
|
Bar-On Model of EI |
|
|
|
Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) |
Self-report for 16yrs + 133 items used to obtain total EQ + produce 5 composite scales corresponding to 5 main components of Bar-On model Low score = inability to be effective in meeting daily demands/existence of social/emotional probs Not measure of personality traits or cog capacity |
|
|
Similarities of Ability & Mixed Models of EI Theoretically |
Aim to understand+measure elements involved in recognition+regulations of own emotions+emotions of others All agree key components to EI - consensus that there is an awareness of emotions + management of emotions |
|
|
Similarities of Ability & Mixed Models of EI Statistical |
Relationship between different sub scales of emotional intelligence: Significant similarities between regulation of emotion sub scale of MSCEIT + interpersonal EQ scale of Bar-On EQ-I |
|
|
Measuring EI Evaluation - Self Report Measures (mixed models) |
- Extent to which a certain statement applies - Reliance on a person's self-understanding and self-concept - Accurate if the person's self-concept is accurate |
|
|
Measuring EI Evaluation - Other Report Measures (mixed models) |
- Individuals familiar with a person asked to what extent statement describes that person - Measure of reputation not true self |
|
|
Measuring EI Evaluation - Performance Measures (abilities models) |
- Individual engage in a number of cognitive tasks - Regarded as gold standard for traditional intelligence - Measures actual capacities rather than beliefs about those capacities |
|
|
Criticism of Mixed Models |
Emphasisof mixed models shifts from a focus on defining EI (ability models) to defininga what makes (characteristics) asuccessfully ‘EI’ person Keycriticism of mixed models - uncertain how useful EI is for enhancing theunderstanding of human ability over and above what is already available e.g.personality and general intelligence |
|
|
Support + Criticism of Ability Models |
Ability model supporters argue thatresearch based on ability measures has demonstrated that EI is a distinct and clearly definedconstruct with evidence of incremental validity Keycriticism - focuses too strictly on traditional intelligence-based psychometric criteria - fail to broaden traditional notion of intelligence + do not necessarily measure success in school or life |
|
|
Neurological Evidence for EI |
Findings don't support one model over another Do endorse the existence of a set ofemotional abilities that comprise a form of intelligence,which is distinct and differentfrom standard intelligence |
|
|
Cont. |
Ability to neurologically distinguish cognitive intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EI) is a significant contribution to the legitimacy of the emotional intelligence construct However lack of empirical research to support the biological theoretical contexts in which Goleman and Bar-On place their models of EI |
|
|
Applicability to Everyday Living - High EI associated with |
-Greater self-efficacy in coping situations -Higher EI associated with better health and psychological ‘mental’health -Higher life satisfaction -Higher levels of happiness -Increased positive interpersonalrelationships -Higher levels of academic achievement across a range o subjects (maths,science art) |
|
|
Applicability to Everyday Living - Low EI associated with |
-Owning more self-help books -Higher use of illegal drugs and alcohol -Increased participation in deviantbehaviour - i.e.involvement in physical fights and vandalism |
|
|
Gender & EI - Goleman |
|
|
|
Gender & EI - Mayer and Salovey |
Ability model of EI (MSCEIT) Womenhave been found to score significantly higher than men |
|
|
Gender & EI - Bar-On |
Using the EQi - Overallscores = no significant dif Females score signif higher on allthree aspects of interpersonal skills: Empathy, social responsibility + interpersonal relationships andare more aware of their ownemotions than men are Males signif higher on: Self-regard, cope better with stress, more independent, solveproblems better, more optimistic. ØHowever,all but one of the effects beingbelow 0.16; The exception was empathy, effect size just under 0.45 |
|
|
Cont. |
However, all but one of the effects being below 0.16; The exception was empathy, effect size just under 0.45 |
|
|
Genderand EI - Implications |
Self-fulfillingprophecy and biased evaluations Rodman + Glick 1999-Jobadvert –managerial post requiredtechnical skills, ability to workunder pressure and ability to be helpful and sensitive to the needs of others Femaleapplicants who displayed ‘masculine’ qualities received lowerhire-ability ratings than ‘masculine’ male applicants |
|
|
Cont. |
Concluded that women must present themselves as competent and agentic to be hired, but they may then be viewed as interpersonally deficient and uncaring because of their violation of the female nurturance stereotype |
|
|
What is personality? |
No universally accepted definition |
|
|
Hippocrates + Galen - Four Humours |
All about body fluid - black bile = melancholic, yellow bile = choleric, blood = sanguine, phlegm = phlegmatic If out of balance then physical illness Individuals can fit into multiple categories - Its a description of personality rather than personality traits - NEED PICTURE |
|
|
Wundt's Emotional Dimension |
NEED picture Can move across these spectrums |
|
|
Trait Theories |
Traits - fundamental units of personality Sheldon Allport Cattell Eysenck Costa + McCrae |
|
|
Sheldon |
Somatypes First psychometric approach towards understanding personality - Male body atlas only + Collected extensive surveys and applied statistical techniques to analyse the data |
|
|
Gordon Allport |
Dispositions - concrete easily recognised consistencies in our behaviour Produced a long list of words outlining different personality traits - 18,000 Personality is flexible - Most are ambiguous and overlap with meanings of other terms - Psychologists have been interested in more efficient terms for describing personality |
|
|
Cont. |
Used personal dispositions instead of traits - said traits were observable entities - related to self |
|
|
Traits explanation |
Cardinal– obsessive, like to be ruling, competitive Central– 5-10traits that best describe an individual’s personality Secondary– anindividuals preferences, only come to light in particular situations |
|
|
Evaluation |
Raised issue of personality and situation + Included self concept - Did not develop measure of personality traits - 4,500 traits too long, not practical in assessing personality |
|
|
Raymond Cattell |
Factor analysis Looked at multiple intelligence in terms of fluid/crystalised Research based approach - psychometric basis of traits - empirical methods to explain personality Factor analysis locates source traits - divided into environmental (interaction) + constitutional (born with) |
|
|
Distinguished: |
Grouped into classes on the basis of how they're expressed. Distinguish between: 1) Goal-oriented/action: dynamic traits 2) Effectiveness in goal achievement: ability traits 3) Energy/emotional reactivity: temperamental tr Further distinguish between common vs unique traits |
|
|
Cont. |
Also distinguish Surface - cluster of overt trait elements that go together vs Source traits - underlying variables that are causal entities determining surface manifestations |
|
|
16PF Evaluation |
Cattell - identifies 16 different source traits allowing ranking on how important these traits are in defining someone + Acknowledges genetics + envi + Empirically based + Comprehensive theory - Limited published work |
|
|
Cont |
- Focus on objectivity of approach andignores the inherent subjectivity involved in factor analysis – element of subjectivity involvedas a researcher, he didn’t take that into account, no reflecting |
|
|
Eysenck |
Hierarchical Typology Based on physiology + genetics as well as psychometric approach - factor analysis Primarily interested in temperament types - studied nervous system As human beingswe are stable, with long lasting characteristics, stop developing when webecome adults |
|
|
Cont. |
Thereare 3 basic personality dimensions/types Twosuper traits – extraversion (sociable, impulsive, orientation towards externalreality) + introversion (quiet,introspective, reflect on themselves, inner reality) Secondpersonality type – neuroticism - those with psychopathic traits (foundmostly in prisons) – insensitive, hostile, cruel |
|
|
Evaluation - Pros |
EPQ translated into many differentlanguages and generalised across countries and gender Three-factor structure has agenetic (biological) basis and takes into account the role of the environmentin the development of personality Therapeutic applications Focus on not only description butalso explanation of individual differences in personality |
|
|
McCrae & Costa |
Five Factor Model Dueto long search for ‘universal taxonomy’ of traits, disagreements betweenresearchers as to how many traits and which dimensions existed Morerecently consensus reached on five dimensions of personality that emerge fromratings using English language adjectives - 3 super traits but think Eysenk missed 2 |
|
|
The big 5 |
Neuroticism -e.g. worrying , insecure, self pitying Extraversion-e.g. sociable, fun-loving, affectionate Openness –e.g. independent, imaginative, open to new experiences Agreeableness–e.g. trusting, liberal, helpful Conscientiousness - e.g. organised, careful, self-disciplined |
|
|
Evaluation |
A lot of research to support - e.g. MyersBriggs personality inventory supports + Fivefactor model compatible with Cattell’s+ Eysenck'smeasures Translated into several languages Demonstrate observedpersonality differences are stable over time and have a genetic basis Represents a universalstructure of personality found in different languages, ages and races Criticisedfor not being derived from a theoretical base - a-theoretic |
|
|
Measuring Personality |
Allport:non-quantitative theoretical approach Cattell:Sixteen Personality Factors Test (16PF) Eysenck: Eysenck’sPersonality Inventory/questionnaire (EPI & EPQ) McCrae & Costa: NeuroticismExtraversion Openness Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) |
|
|
Evaluation of uses of traits approach |
+Criticalreviews & meta-analytical studies have linked behaviour in diverse areasranging from consumerism to health, education and work, to correlates ofpersonality traits -Still someargument about number of traits -Trait models don't explain underlying mechanisms of personality and socialbehaviour i.e how traits are formed/sustained/influence behaviour |
|
|
Cont. |
-Mischel argued situational variables predict some behaviour more than the personality traits +However, trait/personality measures has had beneficial effects in the work setting: psychometric tests, individual and group tasks and interview frequently used together as an assessment package (this prevents overreliance on the psychometric tool |
|
|
Psychoanalytical Approach Instincts |
Freudinfluenced by Darwin - fromanimal instinct theory to humans All born with a certain amount of energy (libido) Drives,impulses as motivating force: Sexual drives, life-preserving drives, death drives Pleasuredriven: libido Fundamentalcauses of behaviour |
|
|
Structural Model of Personality |
Used to gratify our instincts Super ego - good Ego ID |
|
|
ID |
Drivenby the pleasure principle: Inborn survival instinct Reflexactions sourced by cravings, impulses - food, warmth, reproduction,domination Primaryprocess thinking- no sense of delayed gratification |
|
|
Ego |
Obeysthe reality principle: Planning,thinking, organising Operatesaccording to the reality principle - think between own needs and the social world Libidoenergy transfers from ID during maturation |
|
|
Super Ego |
REFLECTINGPARENTAL/SOCIETAL REINFORCED VALUES, NORMS & ETHICS: Conscience- what’s right or wrong Acts in opposition to the Id, helping theego to re-channel the id’s impulses Social prescription-internalised fromparents, family, values, religion, education |
|
|
Freuds image of the person |
Individualas irrational-being, born all id Drivenby instincts Constantinternal conflict between the various instincts Unconsciousprocesses 5 distinct stages during which libido (energy) is invested |
|
|
Stages of psychosexual development* |
Fixationat various stages can impact development processes and adult personality |
|
|
Case studies |
Little Hans Rat Man |
|
|
Defence Mechanisms* |
Conflict–demands of ID are so strong that conflict results in defence mechanism to protectconscious from pain/self esteem Only need two with explanations for exam |
|
|
Clinical application of Freudian Theory |
PSYCHOANALYSISAS PSYCHOTHERAPY: Uncovering of childhood memories/traumas/fixations - gives insight into problems Catharsis as change agent Access unconscious through free association: therapistreads list of words and patient talksabout what ever is on their mind - allows repressed memories to resurface |
|
|
Evaluation |
- Free association may not prove useful if the client shows resistance, and is reluctant to say what he or she is thinking • |
|
|
Supporting experimental research |
Cognitivepsychologists agree that there are mechanism for excluding unwanted materialfrom conscious Evidenceto support oral and anal personalities, but weak evidence to support theOedipal conflicts and Electra complex Researchon emotion validates unconscious motivation |
|
|
Evaluation of Freudian Theory |
+Fairlycomprehensive addressing both abnormal and normal behaviour +In-depth&holistic perspective of the individual +Hasheuristic value and applied value -Toomuch attention on childhood experiences -Psychosexual(biological) focus and ignores the social world -Difficultto verify main concepts |
|
|
Humanistic Approach |
Origin 1950’s/60’s - led by Maslow Morea movement than a single organised theory Emphasisis on : personalgrowth, hereand now, freewill, phenomenology |
|
|
Maslow Human nature and motivation |
Human beings have positive innatetendencies towards healthy growing - display honesty, trust, kindness, love Two distinct type of motivations: Deficiencymotives- basic‘survival’ needs (hunger, thirst) Growthmotives- developingindividuals potential, ‘functioning’ needs (new experiences, knowledge, skills) - unique to individuals |
|
|
Hierarchy of Needs |
Self Actualisation Esteem Love/Belonging Safety Physiological Underlying cause of mental health problemwas from failing to meet a step or satisfy a need |
|
|
Self-Actualisation |
Allhumans have in-born self-actualising tendency Theyneed the right conditions in which to develop motivation to realise their potential Roleof childhood not neglected but lifespan development emphasised Notall individuals achieve self-actualization, but many strive to do so |
|
|
Self Personality |
Humanistic approach focuses on the selfas a basis for personality We are all born with an organismic self which is inherently positive and is thevery basis of the humanistic personality Being treated in a contradictory mannermakes one lose touch with their organismic self thereby leading to emotional/psychological problems |
|
|
Maslow Evaluation |
+High on face validity…but an over simplified description ofhuman behaviour +Very concise description of humanpersonality…but lacking details -Lack of empirical research -Not a comprehensive theory and a lack ofexplanation of how self-actualisation can be achieved +Great impact on applications - a way of examining human motivational needs |
|
|
Rogers person-centred approach |
Distinguishingbetween: Realorganismic self- ourgenetic blueprint + Self-concept- our perceptions of who we are, how others evaluate us Individualsreceive conditions of worth imposed by parents and how othersperceive us- Impacts self-esteem results in developing conceptualisations of our idealselves that we compare with our real selves |
|
|
Cont. |
Greater ‘conditions of worth’ associated with an individuals self concept = less psychologically healthy Greater condition of worth – greater individuals self concept – more mentally unhealthy – more sanctions put on someone - more likely to engage in antisocialbehaviour + mental health problems |
|
|
Patient-centred therapy |
To facilitate a reintegration of theself-concept Successful counselling requires goodclient-patient relationship achieved through 7 coreconditions of counselling To improve on the effects of counselling, Rodgers developed the Q-Sortmeasurement of self-concept (pic) |
|
|
Rogers Evaluation |
-Over simplified conceptualisation and notcomprehensive theory of human beings +Phenomenological approach attempts toengage with the world as individuals experience it +Lot of research on therapy…but majority is reliant on self-report measures -Subjective- ignores objective measurementand relies on individual observations |
|
|
Cont. |
+Heuristic value: valuable contribution to science, led to re-evaluation of the important of individual and their subjective worldview +Widely applied: Helped define the training of most counsellors and to be trained in Rogerian therapy; also influential in the development of group approaches to psychological treatments |
