lecture 20 - can the environment improve intelligence? Flashcards
(17 cards)
can the environment change IQ?
Why is this topic
important? - in an essay this would be the introductory paragraph
it’s quite simple
really……predictive validity
(Ritchie, 2015).
Educational
achievement (Alloway &
Alloway, 2010; Cirino et
al., 2016; McGrew &
Knopik, 1993).
- measures of intelligence predict academic achievement
- Alloway and Alloway found that IQ levels at age 5 predicted literacy and numeracy skills one year later
- mcgrew and knopnik - found that IQ predicts mathematical skills and mathematical reasoning and mental arthimatic and all sorts of other indices of mathematical behaviour
School outcomes (Finn
et al., 2014; Hannon,
2016).
- Finn did a longitudinal study over the course of 4 years and repeatedly measure the children over the 4 years and found positive correlations between IQ and standardised measures of intelligence/ assessments in school
- Hannon found that IQ predicts SAT results in the US
higher IQ is related to better literacy, Better numeracy and better achievement ins school and all of those things are related to life outcomes
Life outcomes (Gerardi
et al., 2013; Hafer, 2017;
Levine et al., 2016; Lynn
et al., 2016; Ritchie &
Bates, 2013)
- Ritchie and bates found that literacy and numeracy at age 7 predicted socioeconomic status and educational achievement at 42 years old - they controlled for socioeconomic status at birth which was important as if someone was born rich that would be the thing that would predict the most how much they would earn later on
- geradi found that low numerical ability was related to increased chances of more mortgage default
- levine - found iq predicted earnings
- hafer looked at mean IQ scores across different countries and found there was an average increase in IQ at one point that resulted in an 4% increase in the economic group of the whole country. Countries IQ is related to how much country makes - money GDP
lots of other life outcomes it predicts such as social class, BMI, physical health, physical exercise, smoking behaviour, no of arrests and mental health
IQ results predict SAT results
IQ predicted money earnings
IQ predicts diseases eg coronary and digestive diseases and mortality rates
having higher IQ predicts a longer life
you would end para with a thesis statement that orients the reader to the point of the essay eg this essay is going to critically evaluation the proposition that improvement in intelligence can occur via the environment
beginning of second para could be given the advantages of higher IQ the important question arises whether it can be improved. then explore the ideas of the environment and systematic intervention
bridges between paras are important
The environment
Without explicit intervention attempts, can the
environment impact IQ?
Turkheimer et al. (2003) found that socio-
economic status will change IQ scores. - if you come from low SES your at a disadvantage
Guill et al. (2017) found that grouping
students by ability in schools can improve
intelligence scores. - idea is that by being in a cognitively stimulating environment and one that matches your abilities so its neither too hard or too easy will have a positive Impact on your IQ
The Flynn Effect suggests that IQ is increasing
across generations, which some have found
occurs due to environmental factors
(Bratsberg & Rogeberg, 2018). - because of advances in tech we are able to access info now much more quickly and because of that then this environmental variable IQ is changing
IQ can also fall, due to: neurodegeneration
(Haxby et al., 1992), acquired brain injury
(Morris et al., 2005), absence from school - for a year = - 6 IQ points
(Ceci, 1991), lower activity levels (Newsom &
Kemps, 2005) and diet - found that children who are deficient in vitamins and then they were given these vitamins improved IQ (Protzko, 2017).
Nisbett et al. (2012) and Flynn (2016) had
further thoughts on the matter.
- nisbett suggested intelligence may be less stable across the lifespan than we previously thought so it seems malleable and able to go ups and down and this happens as a result of environmental influences
- flynn substantiated that claim and said the same thing that environment does matter when it comes to IQ
we could try to systematically manipulate the environment to increase the chances of people having higher IQ
what interventions could be done in order to help people improve IQ
Intervention
Buschkuehl & Jaeggi (2010) provide a
comprehensive review of the literature on
interventions aimed at improving intelligence. - looked at interventions that used memory training and trained in the use of cognitive stimuation and other things that have been used to try and improve intelligence
While it’s accepted that most commercially
developed brain training games do not
improve IQ (Simons et al., 2016), some
researchers have made progress in this area.
- Simons found that these kind of brain training games simply tend to not work but some researchers have made progress in this area
Anguera et al. (2013) found that a video game
(Neuro Racer) that involves a lot of multi-
tasking improved participants performance,
working memory and sustained attention. - those things are likely to be components of intelligence
However, such results did not generalize to
general intelligence.- they got better at working memory and sustained attention but there IQ did not really change
Intervention
Other researchers have also
created interventions designed
to improve working memory, in
the hope that doing so would
improve IQ.
An example of such an
intervention is the Dual N-Back
task. - have to remember sequences of letters and patterns
Schweizer et al. (2011) found
that this task improved working
memory and fluid intelligence.
Later researchers have found
mixed results (Au et al., 2015;
Melby-Lervag et al., 2016; Redick
et al., 2013; Sala et al., 2017).
- redick - failed to replicate findings
- au et al - found that the Dual N-back task resulted in an IQ gain of 3 to 4 points
- sala criticised the au et al paper
- melby-lervag suggested that the task can improve working memory just not improve general IQ - they did a meta analysis to come to that conclusion - so it doesnt affect other areas of IQ such as verbal ability, non verbal ability, word decoding, reading comprehension or mental arithmetic
theres no cross domain transfer meaning there was no generalising effect
Why does this
matter?
Because the
holy grail in IQ
research is to
be able to raise
general
cognitive ability,
not to be able
to train discrete
abilities (i.e.,
working
memory).
some researchers have suggested that maybe the reason we are failing to improve IQ is because we dont have a good idea about what leads to Better intelligence in the first place
Cassidy 2011 provided a theory on this and suggested that what actually underpins IQ is a persons relational language abilities - so if someone is given training in relational language abilities then that would result in general improvements of intelligence
make sure have lots of critical analysis in essay to get good marks
spotlight study - a relational frame training intervention to raise intelligent quotients - a pilot study
Sarah Cassidy and Bryan Roche
national university of Ireland, maynooth
Steven C. Hayes
University of Nevada, Reno
going to go through study
introduction
The environment can impact IQ.
Therefore, we can do things in the environment that can change IQ.
An intervention informed by Relational Frame Theory (Hayes et al., 2001) may improve IQ.
Prior work in the area has found that skill in relational responding is related to improved
performance on IQ tests (e.g., O’Hora et al., 2005; O’Toole & Barnes-Holmes, 2009). word related suggests a correlation - found that those who have greater relational language abilities tend to have higher IQ = correlation
However, these studies have only been correlational in nature, rather than intervention-
based.
Much research has been conducted to show that it is possible to train skills in relational
responding, but no research has been conducted to see if such training impacts IQ.
Method
8 normally developing children, between
the ages of 8-12 years old (6 female, M-
age: 10.8 years old), took part in the study.
Children completed the Weschler
Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IIIUK;
Weschler, 1997), and were then allocated
to condition.
Those in the experimental condition
received the RFT intervention. Those in
the control condition received a stimulus
equivalence training procedure.
Children completed the WISC again at two
further time-points.
results
diagram in notes
results for baseline were average IQ for both groups around 100
when everyone received stimulus equivalence training they measured IQ again and for some reason the experimental group already shows larger increase in IQ
at the last time point when the control group did not do anything they are still at baseline and there is a huge difference as the children who were trained in the relational training improved to an IQ of 130 - they have been taken two SDs above the mean
second study
They gave 8 11–12-year-old children SMART over
a 9-month period.
SMART = strength and mental abilities with relational training
Results showed that participants full IQ score rose
by 13.10 points.
3 subscales of the WISC improved dramatically
(Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning
and Processing Speed).
Working Memory did not improve, which is
interesting given that interventions that improve
working memory do not improve IQ. - suggest working memory may be a separate construct
Making it
mainstream
Later research reported
similar results: Cassidy et
al. (2016), Hayes and
Stewart (2016), Thirus et
al. (2016), and Colbert et
al. (2018).
Then McLoughlin et al.
(2020) took relational
responding to the
mainstream - he wrote an article in flagship journal for intelligence describing the line of research showing that relational language training can really impact upon IQ
people were excited about this as the approach achieved something that had not been achieved it achieved across the generalisation effects so they train children in relational language abilities and improvements in general IQ
critical analysis
- small sample size
- they havent measured learning experiences the ptps have had outside the intervention as a longitudinal study
- ethics - we know what effects improving IQ had is it ethical to have only one group of children trained to improve IQ
Many of the studies in this area have small N. In the Cassidy et al. (2011) paper, only 12
children in total received the intervention.
Many studies struggle to employ adequate control groups. In the Cassidy study, the control
group had nothing after phase 1. you want to have an active control group where they are receiving something similar to the experimental group
Outside learning opportunities generally aren’t controlled for. This is important if we accept
the idea that the environment can influence IQ.
Is SMART even feasible? Can it be done without a researcher present, in a classroom for
example? if not what’s the point in developing it in the first place when it can’t be done on a larger scale
Are there long-term effects? only studied for 18 months. Most IQ raising intervention attempts (e.g., Headstart) report
return-to-baseline long-term effects (Hopkins 1971; Lipsey et al., 2018; Nijenhuis et al.,
2014).
after doing critical analysis in essay want to say to reader this has what has been done since in the final paragraph
the same authors who did study published another one two years later = further research
Controlling for differences at baseline
→ Controlling for differences between experimental and control group in attention and IQ
at baseline eliminated SMART effects - so in original study two groups were not the same
you would then write a conclusion
example essay qus
Critically discuss the
proposition that
intelligence is the biggest
predictor of success in
human beings.
Intelligence is fixed and
nothing can be done to
change that. Discuss.
The impact of the SMART program on cognitive and academic skills: A systematic review and meta-analysis” from the British Journal of Educational Technology (2022):
Summary: SMART Program - Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
📌 What is SMART?
SMART stands for Strengthening Mental Abilities with Relational Training.
It’s an online cognitive training program based on Relational Frame Theory (RFT).
It focuses on relational reasoning (e.g., “A > B, B > C, so A > C”) rather than content-specific tasks.
Claims to enhance general intelligence (IQ) and promote far transfer to academic performance.
🎯 Aims of the Review
Evaluate SMART’s impact on IQ and academic performance.
Assess methodological quality of studies on SMART.
📚 Study Inclusion
5 studies included (N = 195 participants).
Participants: children and adolescents in school settings.
All studies used standardized tests of non-verbal IQ (e.g., Raven’s Matrices, WASI).
Designs: All were randomized control trials (RCTs).
📈 Key Findings
Moderate positive effect on non-verbal IQ:
Pooled effect size: g = 0.57 (95% CI [0.24, 0.89]).
When only active controls were used: g = 0.53.
Insufficient evidence for effects on:
Verbal IQ
Math performance
Memory or processing speed
No long-term follow-up data reported.
⚠️ Limitations
All studies had high risk of bias, including:
No double-blinding.
Small sample sizes.
High dropout rates.
Absence of intention-to-treat analysis.
Lack of long-term follow-up data to assess sustained effects.
Risk of expectancy/placebo effects due to website name (“raiseyouriq.com”).
🧪 Meta-Analytic Procedures
Used Hedges’ g for effect sizes due to small sample sizes.
Only non-verbal IQ measures had sufficient data for meta-analysis.
Prediction intervals showed uncertainty about the effect’s reliability in future studies.
✅ Strengths of Review
First meta-analysis of SMART.
Followed PRISMA guidelines and was pre-registered (PROSPERO).
Used rigorous bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2).
🔍 Recommendations for Future Research
Conduct larger-scale, double-blind RCTs with active controls.
Include long-term outcome measures to assess real-world educational benefits.
Improve participant retention and adherence.
📝 Conclusion
SMART shows moderate promise for improving non-verbal intelligence in the short term, but the evidence base is limited and methodologically weak. Larger, more rigorous studies are necessary before SMART can be widely recommended for cognitive or educational enhancement.
Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused” by Bratsberg & Rogeberg (2018),
Key Focus
The study investigates whether the Flynn effect (long-term rise in IQ scores) and its recent reversal are due to genetic or environmental causes. Using data from 730,000+ Norwegian conscripts (1962–1991), the authors show that environmental factors alone can explain both trends.
Core Concepts
✅ Flynn Effect
Average IQ scores increased about 3 points per decade during the 20th century.
Traditionally attributed to improved education, health, nutrition, and other environmental improvements.
❌ Reversal of Flynn Effect
Recent IQ declines observed in many Western countries.
Some claim it’s due to dysgenic fertility (lower IQ individuals having more children) or immigration.
The study challenges these explanations.
Methodology
Within-family design: Compared IQ differences between brothers to control for genetics and shared family environment.
Used Norwegian military conscription data (1962–1991) — nearly all males were tested.
Developed Bayesian models to correct for selection bias in later cohorts (where not all individuals were tested).
Key Findings
✅ Within-family comparisons mirrored national trends:
Both the increase (1962–1975) and the decline (1975–1991) in IQ scores were visible within families, ruling out between-family causes like genetics or immigration.
Average within-family Flynn increase = +0.20 IQ points/year.
Average within-family Flynn decline = −0.33 IQ points/year.
❌ Refutes genetic/dysgenic explanations:
No evidence for declining IQ due to genetic changes (e.g., lower-IQ individuals reproducing more).
Genetic selection can’t explain the rapid, large magnitude of observed IQ changes.
✅ Supports environmental causation:
Changes must stem from environmental factors that vary within families (e.g., education quality, media exposure, diet, healthcare, etc.).
Commonly proposed environmental causes: reduced education quality, altered parenting, screen time/media, and nutritional changes.
⚠️ Methodological strength:
Fixed-effects regression and Bayesian correction for missing data (e.g., untested brothers in later cohorts).
Robustness checks confirm trends even when correcting for potential data bias.
Implications
The reversal of IQ gains is not due to genetics or family-level social changes.
Policy focus should be on environmental and educational factors affecting cognitive development.
Warns against overemphasizing genetic explanations for intelligence trends.
Conclusion
This study powerfully demonstrates that both the rise and fall of IQ scores (Flynn effect and its reversal) are entirely environmental in nature. It emphasizes the importance of public health, education, and social conditions in shaping cognitive abilities — not inherited traits or immigration.
