21.2 Components of Intelligence: Many and Varied

Responding to all these data, developmentalists are now looking closely at patterns of cognitive gain and loss. They contend that, because virtually every pattern is possible, it is misleading to ask whether intelligence either increases or decreases; it does not move in lockstep. There may be “vast domains of cognitive performance … that may not follow a common, age-linked trajectory of decline” (Dannefer & Patterson, 2009, p. 116).

Many psychologists describe distinct intellectual abilities, each of which independently rises and falls. Math slowdowns are apparent even by age 40, but verbal ability keeps rising until the 60s (Schaie, 2013). Most current researchers agree that there are many forms of intelligence (Roberts & Lipnevich, 2012).

We consider here only two proposals, one that posits two distinct abilities and the other, three. [Lifespan Link: Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences describes nine abilities, an idea with implications for childhood education, as explained in Chapter 11.]

Two Clusters of Intelligence

In the 1960s, a leading personality researcher, Raymond Cattell, teamed up with a promising graduate student, John Horn, to study intelligence tests. They concluded that adult intelligence is best understood by grouping various measures into two categories, which they called fluid and crystallized.

As its name implies, fluid intelligence is like water, flowing to its own level no matter where it happens to be. Fluid intelligence is quick and flexible, enabling people to learn anything, even things that are unfamiliar and unconnected to what they already know. Curiosity, learning for the joy of it, solving abstract puzzles, and the thrill at discovering something new are marks of fluid intelligence (Silvia & Sanders, 2010).

People high in fluid abilities can draw inferences, understand relationships between concepts, and readily process new ideas and facts in part because their working memory is large and flexible. Someone high in fluid intelligence is quick and creative with words and numbers and enjoys intellectual puzzles. The kinds of questions that test fluid intelligence among Western adults might be:

Puzzles are often used to measure fluid intelligence, with speedy solutions given bonus points (as on many IQ tests). Immediate recall—of nonsense words, of numbers, of a sentence just read—is one indicator because working memory is crucial for fluid intelligence, especially in timed tests (Chuderski, 2013; Nisbett et al., 2012).

Since fluid intelligence appears to be disconnected from past learning, it may seem impractical—not so. A study of adults aged 34 to 83 found that stressors did not vary by age but did vary by fluid intelligence. People high in fluid intelligence were more exposed to stress but were less likely to suffer from it: They used their intellect to turn stressors into positive experiences (Stawski et al., 2010).

The ability to detoxify stress may be one reason that high fluid intelligence in emerging adulthood leads to longer life and higher IQ later on. Fluid intelligence is associated with openness to new experiences and overall brain health (Batterham et al., 2009; Silvia & Sanders, 2010). (Ways to cope with stress are discussed later in this chapter, when you will see that adaptive cognition provides the best defense against the problems of life.)

The accumulation of facts, information, and knowledge as a result of education and experience is called crystallized intelligence. The size of a person’s vocabulary, the knowledge of chemical formulas, and the long-term memory for dates in history all indicate crystallized intelligence. Tests designed to measure this intelligence might include questions like these:

Although such questions seem to measure achievement more than aptitude, these two are connected, especially in adulthood. Intelligent adults read widely, think deeply, and remember what they learn, so their achievement reflects their aptitude. Thus crystallized intelligence is an outgrowth of fluid intelligence (Nisbett et al., 2012).

Vocabulary, for example, improves with reading. Using the words joy, ecstasy, bliss, and delight—each appropriately, with distinct nuances (quite apart from the drugs, perfumes, or yogurts that use these names)—is a sign of intelligence. Remember the knowledge base (Chapter 12): As people know more, they learn more. That explains why a person’s extent of education is considered a rough indicator of adult IQ (Nisbett et al., 2012).

Think Before Acting Both of these adults need to combine fluid and crystallized intelligence, insight and intuition, logic and experience. One (left) is a surgeon, studying X-rays before picking up her scalpel. The other (right) is a court reporter for a TV station, jotting notes during a lunch recess before delivering her on-camera report on a trial.

© PHOTOSINDIA/CORBIS
©JEFF GREENBERG/PHOTOEDIT

To reflect the total picture of a person’s intellectual aptitude, both fluid and crystallized intelligence must be measured (Hunt, 2011). Age complicates the IQ calculation because scores on items measuring fluid intelligence decrease with age, whereas scores on items measuring crystallized intelligence increase.

Scores on subtests tend to increase or decrease over time. Typically, speed and verbal ability change in opposite ways. The combination makes IQ fairly steady from ages 30 to 70. Although brain slowdown begins at age 20 or so, it is rarely apparent until massive declines in fluid intelligence affect crystallized intelligence. Only then do overall IQ scores fall.

Horn and Cattell (1967) wrote that they had:

In other words, it may be foolish to try to measure g, a single omnibus intelligence, because components need to be measured separately. In testing for g, real developmental changes will be masked because fluid and crystallized abilities cancel each other out.

Three Forms of Intelligence: Sternberg

Robert Sternberg (1988, 2003, 2011) agrees that a single intelligence score is misleading. As first mentioned in Chapter 11, Sternberg proposed three fundamental forms of intelligence: analytic, creative, and practical, each of which can be tested. (See Table 21.1.)

Analytic intelligence includes all the mental processes that foster academic proficiency by making efficient learning, remembering, and thinking possible. Thus, it draws on abstract planning, strategy selection, focused attention, and information processing, as well as on verbal and logical skills.

Strengths in those areas are valuable in emerging adulthood, particularly in college, and in graduate school. Multiple-choice tests and brief essays that call forth remembered information, with only one right answer, indicate analytic intelligence.

Creative intelligence involves the capacity to be intellectually flexible and innovative. Creative thinking is divergent rather than convergent, valuing the unexpected, imaginative, and unusual, rather than standard and conventional answers. Sternberg developed tests of creative intelligence that include writing a short story titled “The Octopus’s Sneakers” or planning an advertising campaign for a new doorknob. Those with many unusual ideas earn high scores.

Practical intelligence involves the capacity to adapt one’s behavior to the demands of a given situation. This capacity includes an accurate grasp of the expectations and needs of the people involved and an awareness of the particular skills that are called for, along with the ability to use these insights effectively. Practical intelligence is sometimes called tacit intelligence because it is not obvious on tests. Instead it comes from “the school of hard knocks” and is sometimes called “street smarts,” not “book smarts.”

Smart Farmer; Smart Teacher This school field trip is not to a museum or a fire station but to a wheat field, where children study grains that will become bread. Like this creative teacher, modern farmers use every kind of intelligence. To succeed, they need to analyze soil, fertilizer, and pests (analytic intelligence); to anticipate market prices and food fads (creative intelligence); and to know what crops and seed varieties grow in each acre of their land as they manage their workers (practical intelligence).

©PETER BECK/CORBIS

The benefits of practical intelligence in adult life are obvious once we recall the cognitive tasks of adulthood. Few adults need to define obscure words or deduce the next element in a number sequence (analytic intelligence); and few need to write a new type of music, restructure local government, or invent a new gadget (creative intelligence). Ideally, those few have already found a niche for themselves and have learned to rely on people with practical intelligence to implement their analytic or creative ideas.

Almost every adult, however, must solve real-world challenges: maintaining a home; advancing a career; managing family finances; sifting information from media, mail, and the Internet; addressing the emotional needs of family members, neighbors, and colleagues (Blanchard-Fields, 2007). Schaie found that scores on tests of practical intelligence were steadier than scores on other kinds of tests from age 20 to 70, with no notable decrement, in part because these skills are needed throughout life (Schaie, 2005).

Practical intelligence is very useful. Without it, a solution found by analytic intelligence will fail because people resist academic brilliance as unrealistic and elite, as the term ivory tower implies. Similarly, a stunningly creative idea may be rejected as ridiculous and weird rather than serious and sensible—if it is not accompanied by practical intelligence.

For example, imagine a business manager, a school principal, a political leader, or a parent without practical intelligence trying to change routine practices—perhaps for a good reason, because the old way was inefficient or destructive. If the new procedures are not compatible with the group and are misunderstood, then the workers, teachers, voters, or family members will misinterpret them, predict failure, and refuse to change.

Same Situation, Far Apart: Men at Work The balloon vendor in Pakistan (left), and the construction supervisor in Beijing, China (right), have much in common: They work outdoors, use practical intelligence, and have good jobs in nations where many people do not. Context is crucial. If they were to trade places, each would be lost at first. However, practical intelligence could save the day—intensive instruction might enable them to master their new role.

FAROOQ NAEEM/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
BLUE JEAN IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES

Flexibility is needed for practical intelligence (K. Sloan, 2009). As you remember from Chapter 18, this develops during emerging adulthood. Ideally, practical intelligence continues to be refined throughout adulthood as each new experience provides practice. Failures can be either defeats or learning opportunities.

No abstract test can assess practical intelligence because context is crucial. Instead, to measure this kind of intelligence, adults need to be observed coping with daily life. In hiring a new employee, the hiring committee might describe an actual situation and ask how the applicant would handle it. Many companies use such situational tests to hire a manager (Salter & Highhouse, 2009). For instance, the prospective employee is asked:

Situational tests can be used in many fields. They are often used in the medical professions: review books have been made for would-be doctors preparing for tests (e.g., Varain & Cartwright, 2013). Because practical intelligence is crucial on the job, probationary periods, internships, and apprenticeships are common.

Sternberg (2011) emphasizes that analytic intelligence is neither the only one nor always the best, and that everyone should deploy the strengths and guard against the limitations of each type. Choosing which intelligence to use takes wisdom, which Sternberg considers a fourth ingredient of successful intelligence:

[Lifespan Link: Wisdom is discussed in Chapter 24.]

Age and Culture

Which kind of intelligence is most needed and valued depends partly on age and partly on culture. Think about Sternberg’s three types. Analytic intelligence is usually valued in high school and college, as students try to remember and analyze various ideas. However, although people considered “smart” usually have analytic intelligence, that is not enough in adulthood. As Sternberg argues: “many very smart people turn a blind eye to the wars, poverty, government atrocities, starvation, and disease that affect others around them” (Sternberg, 2013, p. 188).

Creative intelligence is prized if life circumstances change and new challenges arise; it is much more valued in some cultures and countries than in others (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006). In times of social upheaval, or in certain professions (such as the arts), creativity is a better predictor of accomplishment than is IQ. However, creativity can be so innovative and out of touch that creative people are scorned, ignored, or even killed. The contributions of many creative geniuses went unrecognized until years after their death.

Think about these three intelligences cross-culturally. Creative individuals would be critical of tradition and so would be tolerated only in some political environments. Analytic individuals might be seen as absentminded, head-in-the-clouds dreamers. Practical intelligence, though valued less within school settings, might be most useful. Yet practical intelligence could be used for evil as well as good. Wisdom is then essential.

Difficult as it is to determine who is truly smart, it is even more difficult to judge which nation is smartest, in part because each culture has its own standards to determine the combination of abilities that comprises intelligence (Sternberg, 2013). A controversial idea from Earl Hunt, a psychologist who studies intelligence, is that the nations with the most advanced economies and greatest national wealth are those that make best use of cognitive artifacts—that is, ways to amplify and extend general cognitive ability (Hunt, 2012).

Historically, written language, the number system, universities, and the scientific method were cognitive artifacts. Each of these artifacts extended human intellectual abilities by helping people interact to learn more. Sheer survival (in earlier centuries, more newborns died than lived) and longer life (few people survived to age 50) resulted from cognitive artifacts. The germ theory of disease, for instance, was developed because doctors were able to do research and then learn from each other (Hunt, 2011).

In more recent times, universal education and preventive health care, clean water, electricity, global travel, and the Internet have resulted in advanced societies. According to this idea, smart people are better able to use the cognitive artifacts of their society to advance their own intelligence. Then they develop more cognitive artifacts, and the whole community benefits.

For instance, developed nations provide preschool and kindergarten to all children. That increases the IQ of the new generation, which eventually advances the nation. By contrast, some nations value fertility more than health, expose children to lead and other toxins, and censure information. All those practices undercut the full intellectual development of the people (Hunt, 2011). In thinking about adult intellectual growth, does the specific context of any particular man or woman limit or expand their mind?

OPPOSING PERSPECTIVES

What Makes a Good Parent?

Keep Him Close Mothers everywhere keep their toddlers nearby, but it is particularly important in an environment where poisonous spiders and plants thrive. Thus, you can see why this Ache mother physically protects her son much more than would a wise North American mother—who might instead watch her son explore freely on the floor of the house after removing small objects and covering the electric outlets.

© TERRY WHITTAKER/ALAMY

“Are pacifiers bad for babies?”

“How much should a 4-year-old eat?”

“When do you tell children about sex?”

My students ask me such questions often. I answer based on my knowledge of human development and my experience raising my children. But I wonder how much my answers reflect my culture, and not research. Similar doubts can be raised about almost anything adults know. Our perspective may not be adaptive to some cultural contexts. One definition of intelligence is that it is the ability to adapt to current conditions. Might my intelligence be far more limited than my students assume?

Tests of good infant care have been developed, based primarily on analytic, not practical, child rearing (e.g., McCall et al., 2010). One of the most common scales is the Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI) (MacPhee, 1981). KIDI measures how much caregivers know about infant senses, motor skills, and communication—such as at what age an infant is expected to sit up or whether parents should talk to preverbal babies.

Such knowledge seems helpful. For example, mothers and fathers who score higher on the KIDI are less depressed and more likely to provide responsive baby care (Howard, 2010; Zolotor et al., 2008). Many researchers believe that knowledge of infant development causes (not merely correlates with) good care.

Should we worry when mothers do not know about their babies’ growth? Perhaps. For instance, in one study only 29 percent of immigrant mothers knew that 2-month-olds can distinguish one speech sound from another, an item on the KIDI. The researchers suggest that those mothers are less likely to advance their infants’ language and social skills, handicapping the children later on (Bornstein & Cote, 2007).

The opposing perspective suggests that knowledge of infant development does not matter in caregiving. A study supporting this view found that an immigrant child’s later cognitive development was best predicted not by KIDI scores or other measures of parenting, but by parents’ SES and language use. In this longitudinal study, the mothers’ KIDI scores did not predict later school success for Asian American or Latino children; it did so only for European American children (Han et al., 2012). That suggests that culture was crucial to the outcome.

In another study, researchers provided supportive, encouraging visitors to low-income, unmarried mothers—many of whom did not plan or want their babies (Katz et al., 2011). Compared with a control group with no visits, and even compared with mothers in the intervention group who had relatively few home visits, mothers who were visited 30 or more times became better infant caregivers. However, both before and after many visits, the KIDI scores of the mothers were low. The authors of the study write:

614

A significant impact of this intervention was its effect on the mothers’ ability to create home environments more suitable for the needs of their infants … despite lack of measurable change in mothers’ knowledge of infant development.

[Katz et al., 2011, p. S81]

In other words, advances in practical skills, not analytic ones, made a difference.

Knowledge may not improve parenting. Instead, warmth and patience, responsiveness (without expecting an infant to reciprocate), mental health, or social support networks may be more critical than knowledge. IQ correlates with positive personal attributes, but it does not determine them (Dunkel, 2013).

Part of the underlying reason why tests of knowledge do not always predict good parenting is that cultures vary in what they believe about infant development. Such beliefs may be beneficial to babies in some contexts but not in others. For example, an anthropologist from the United States studied the Ache in Paraguay. The Ache tribal people were respectful and deferential to her on repeated visits, until she and her husband

arrived at their study site in the forest of Paraguay with their infant daughter in tow. The Ache greeted her in a whole new way. They took her aside and in friendly and intimate but no-nonsense terms told her all the things she was doing wrong as a mother…. [She gave one example:] This older woman sat with me and told me I must sleep with my daughter. They were horrified that I brought a basket with me for her to sleep in. Here was a group of forest hunter-gatherers, people living in what Westerners would call basic conditions, giving instructions to a highly educated woman from a technologically sophisticated culture.

[Small, 1998, p. 213]

How important to quality care is accurate knowledge of child development? I am not neutral on this question; I have devoted much of my life to teaching about development. I believe knowledge is power, and I am grateful that I know what I know.

Yet the most important aspect of good parenting may not be information. Similarly, the sign of an intelligent adult may be something other than analytic intelligence. This box raises these issues. Education is a cultural artifact; I think everyone benefits from it. If I were convinced that responsiveness is more important than knowledge, I would teach responsiveness. Is that a contradiction?