Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence

Product Information

Selden, S. (1999). Inheriting shame: The story of eugenics and racism in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. There are also observed sex differences on some particular types of tasks. Women tend to do better than men on some verbal tasks, including spelling, writing, and pronouncing words (Halpern et al., 2007), and they have better emotional intelligence in the sense that they are better at detecting and recognizing the emotions of others (McClure, 2000). On average, men do better than women on tasks requiring spatial ability (Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995), such as the mental rotation tasks (see Figure 9.8). Boys tend to do better than girls on both geography and geometry tasks (Vogel, 1996). Brown, R., Croizet, J.-C., Bohner, G., Fournet, M., & Payne, A. (2003). Automatic category activation and social behaviour: The moderating role of prejudiced beliefs. Social Cognition, 21(3), 167–193. Johns, M., Schmader, T., & Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math performance. Psychological Science, 16(3), 175–179.

There are multiple key areas where individual differences are particularly prominent in people worldwide, which can be examined on a wider scale using assessment methods developed by influential psychologists. These areas of interest include: Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. It would be remiss to omit the British contribution to the assessment of individual differences in applied psychology. We are returning here to the world of civil service testing and the Scottish School of Educational Research. Numerous tests and scales developed by British psychologists have been used in occupational, educational and clinical psychology, but we will briefly dwell on two more general social trends: the retreat from aptitude testing in schools, and the increasing acceptance and regulation of the use of individual difference measures in organisational psychology. Different theories about personality exist, including trait theory, the psychodynamic theory, the social cognitive perspective, the humanistic approach, and the big 5 personality traits (O.C.E.A.N - openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism). Exam and esay questions to alow students to consolidate their understanding. Individual Differences

Check-In

That it was culturally biased and disadvantaged immigrants, so it didn't measure native intelligence, e.g. some questions in the alpha test included testing knowledge about American culture rather than literate ability. Penke, L., Bates, T.C., Gow, A.J. et al. (2009). Symmetric faces are a sign of successful cognitive aging. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 429–437. Those doing the beta and alpha tests didn't get as much time as was specified, so they missed questions.

Saletan, W. (2018, April 27). Stop talking about race and IQ [Web log post]. Slate. Retrieved from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/stop-talking-about-race-and-iq-take-it-from-someone-who-did.html Extremely intelligent individuals are not unhealthy or poorly adjusted, but rather are above average in physical health and taller and heavier than individuals in the general population. Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60(9), 950–958. Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence 5 th edition follows the previous market-leading editions, offering a complete, reader-friendly, and up-to-date introduction to the field. Then, we will cover the measurement of individual differences in cognitive abilities and individual differences in learning, referencing the consequences of individual differencesWell, studies show that these traits show heritabilities from 30% to 60%, with openness to experience and extraversion commonly being the most heritable. Openness to experience tends to correlate highest with intelligence and is associated with a wide class of intellectually oriented traits, such as curiosity, creativity, and willingness to explore new ideas. Occasionally, extraversion has been reported to correlate (positively and negatively) with intelligence, and this relation has been moderated by the nature of the test and the context. Correlations of intelligence with conscientiousness have been small and negative hypothesized that conscientiousness is a trait that less intelligent individuals can possess to compensate in a competitive environment. Conscientiousness, in contrast, has been positively associated with academic performance. Agreeable people tend to be pleasant and accommodating in social situations and this trait is rarely associated with intelligence. Conscientiousness has the strongest positive correlation with job and training performance. Extraversion is associated with success for managers and salespeople. Individuals with high levels of emotional stability tend to be relaxed, secure, unworried, and less likely to experience negative emotions under pressure. Those with low levels are prone to anxiety and tend to view the world negatively. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2013%20(eng)–FINAL%2020%20June%202013.pdf In past times, differential psychology may have appeared from the outside to be a ghetto inhabited by fanatic number-crunchers, evangelical hereditarians and gentlemen-eccentrics. Such a view was always a caricature, but vindication has arrived via the permeation of the core ideas of the British researchers across the spectrum of the theoretical and applied disciplines of psychology. Differential psychology not only stands independently as its own approach, but also as a foundational element for all applied branches of psychology, including educational, occupational, clinical and counselling psychology. They were then compared to the eastern definitions of intelligence including: general cognitive factor of intelligence, this referring to something similar to the western ideal of problem solving, and also is related to one’s cognitive ability – so this refers to higher cognitive competency would lead to better ability to problem solve. Interpersonal intelligence refers to the ability to communicate with others and be adept in social situations, also being able to change from one social situation to another without difficulty. Intrapersonal skills, this is one which was not seen in the western ideal of intelligence and refers to ones modesty as such, for it includes one’s ability to know their abilities and values to a true level and thus one's ability to view themselves objectively. Intellectual self-assertions links strongly to the previous point as it would involve one's ability to successfully take charge of their own skills and use their most beneficial expertise. Intellectual self-effacement which refers to the ability to be modest about intellect.

Chou, V. (2017, April, 17). How science and genetics are reshaping the race debate of the 21st century [Web log post]. Science in the News. Retrieved from http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century Although their bell curves overlap considerably, there are also average group differences for members of different racial and ethnic groups.

My Book Notes

When diverse batteries of subtests are subjected to factor analysis, typically two factors emerge, one a fluid factor and the other a crystallized factor, as indicated by the nature of the subtests that load on these factors ( Horn & Cattell, 1966). The distinction between crystallized and fluid intelligence is supported by their different functional properties, especially with respect to the differential effects of adult age. Whereas fluid intelligence begins its decline in the 20s, crystallized intelligence shows relatively little decline in healthy adults until they reach their 70s, and some tests of crystallized intelligence (e.g., vocabulary tests) even show a slight increase over this same period (for a review, see Deary, 2000, Chapter 8). The two categories of intelligence are differentially sensitive to brain damage of various sorts, with little impairment typically evident for crystallized intelligence but major deficits for fluid intelligence. This pattern has been observed, for example, in patients with white matter lesions ( Leaper et al., 2001) and in those with frontal lobe lesions ( Duncan, Burgess, & Emslie, 1995), as well as in patients with Huntington's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and mild Alzheimer's Disease ( Psychological Corporation, 1997). Johnson, W., Carothers, A. & Deary, I.J. (2008). Sex differences in variability in general intelligence: A new look at the old question. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 518–531. Popular ambivalence over intelligence testing raises the question of whether the theoretical contributions of the London School have made as much of a contribution to general welfare as they might. Certainly, its proponents have shown little fear of controversy and even public opprobrium. Nevertheless, we can assert with confidence that the contributions of British differential psychologists will continue to influence future theory and practice. Other articles in this special issue will give you a flavour of how. Discussion questions, essay questions and an annotated guide to further reading encourage students to consolidate and develop their understanding to a higher level. Deary, I.J., Batty, G.D., Pattie, A. & Gale, C.G. (2008). More intelligent, more dependable children live longer. Psychological Science, 19, 874–880.

Deary, I.J., Whalley, L.J., Lemmon, H. et al. (2000). The stability of individual differences in mental ability from childhood to old age. Intelligence, 28, 49–55. Do you think that we should give intelligence tests? Why or why not? Does it matter to you whether or not the tests have been standardized and shown to be reliable and valid? Everyone has different levels of intelligence from each other, and each person also has different levels of the different types of intelligence, e.g. IQ (Intelligence quotient), emotional intelligence, etc. Gould (1982) carried out a famous study measuring individual differences in intelligence, in which he reviewed and critiqued the largest intelligence test carried out by Yerkes (1917), testing 1.75 million army recruits, in an attempt to measure intelligence in a scientific way. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336–356.

The disregard of individual differences also is surprising because the agenda of behavior analysis includes the analysis of behavior in educational settings, and individual differences in performance are among the most salient aspects of behavior in such settings. Careful programming of environmental contingencies often can improve educational accomplishment, although the fact remains that individuals vary widely in how effectively they deal with academic topics. Some learn and understand complex material with relative ease, whereas others labor to succeed and nevertheless frequently fail in their efforts. Given the prominence of individual differences at every level of educational endeavor, it is surprising that behavior analysts have made so little effort to understand them. Fig. 1 The Big 5 describes our different personalities. Measurement of Individual Differences in Cognitive Abilities the possible role of emotional intelligence in the classroom echoes this early work. Concerns about social fairness and differing maturational trends of children undermined the acceptability of the eleven-plus. Twenty-first century concerns with standardised testing focus more on educational attainment (reflecting teachers’ as well as students’ skills) than on basic aptitude testing, although disentangling aptitude from attainment remains a thorny assessment issue. One major hypothesis regarding the consistency in individual performance that underlies g has been that it reflects individual differences in processing speed ( Jensen, 1998). There is growing evidence of individual consistency in speed of responding across very diverse tasks: Some people are consistently fast on most tasks, whereas others are consistently slow ( Hale & Jansen, 1994; Myerson, Hale, Zheng, Jenkins, & Widaman, 2003; Zheng, Myerson, & Hale, 2000). This consistency is reminiscent of that observed on intelligence tests and suggests that individual differences in the speed with which people process information could affect performance on many different psychological tests and everyday tasks. Historically, the study of individual differences has been an area of research relatively separate from experimental psychology. While experimental psychology has focused on the processes that determine performance in specific experimental situations, the field of individual differences has studied the stable differences among people, particularly those that generalize across diverse situations. The behavioral differences that have received the most attention in this regard have been personality traits and cognitive abilities. Behavior analysis has largely ignored such differences, other than those that are explainable in terms of reinforcement history. This disregard of individual differences is puzzling, given that behavior analysts emphasize that their research focuses on the behavior of individuals rather than on group averages. After all, it is the differences among individuals that distinguish them from the average.