Mandy Part 2 Flashcards
Intelligence background ppl
Galton: single intelligence, biological, people differ. Binet: first test, not meant for intelligence, for kids in school. Goddard and terman: adapted to us, trying to measure single entity. Yerkes- group testing for army. Spearman: g. Rudolf Pinner: used Stanford Binet scale as categorisation tool, . Developed defining of feeblemindedness and normal distribution, those in bottom 3%- linked to eugenics. Today we use normal distribution diff for iq, more systematic and not to categorise, used as a part of diagnosis and understand diffs
Intelligence theories
Single trait: spearman’s g- spec abilities like vocab, maths and spatial underlined by general intell. Key abilities like fluid vs crystallised (castells) or multiple intelligences like Gardner (more practical, sensory system that words more or less well). Iq doesn’t change w age e.g. if 5 and 10 the same, means in same group for age
Infant measures of intelligence
Bayley scale of infant development: 1m-3.5 years. Diff scales: mental like looking for objects, motor like grasping, language, emotion and adaptive behaviour. Gets more difficult like grasping large to small and diff for folder like balance on foot . Fabian test of infant intelligence: visual comparison task to determine categories, looking for ind diffs, can help id developmental disorders but not predicting iq later on
Child measures of intelligence
Stanford Binet test: terman built on Binet, new age norms, need for rep samples, standardised, has higher functions like reasoning and judgment. Termed iq mental age over actual x 100. Og test was bias but now for all cultures, focusing on fluid and crystallised so more theoretical. Wechsler for kids- diff domains, comparable to the WAIS, most widely used for kids over 6. Uses updated iq: actual over expected for age x 100 , influenced by g, diff sub scales
Reliability and validity
Test retest, expect similar results, test validity is measures what it’s meant to. Deary: Scottish kids in 32 and 98, increase but stable child to adult. Honzik 83: correlation in iq and age changes : infancy and age 8 low, increases 1-3 and only becomes high at 6. Means poor reliability of iq in early childhood, poor validity for testing overall ability but better for developmental disorders. Bettter reliability closer in ages e.g. lower between 5-15 but high between 8-9. Affected by time: proximity e.g. better when tests closer, also age- older kids
Nature nature -genes
Mcgue et al93: MZ twins have highest correlation of iq, then dz, siblings, parents, half, cousin, same pattern for raised apart but numbers lower. Deary: lit review says heritability around 20-30%. Mcgue 93: genes explain more variance in adulthood, at childhood it’s 5050 w environment- may bc bc some gene Ed don’t emerge until later on, also ppl chose to live in environments that allow genes to play a stronger role
Nature nurture interactions
Passive: parents genes shape home, this environment may predict child’s trait- so its parents genes scarr 92. Evocative: child inherits traits from those around them, creating a spec environment- Eugene’s evoke a environment response so linked but caused by trait. Active:children inherit genes that cause them to select environments like being pale so don’t go in sun.
Bronfenbrenner’s socio ecological model background and micro
Individual in middle, Microsystems is parents, school, religion and health. Meso is how micro and eco interact, exp is politics, media, neighbours and macro is the culture. Micro: homenobservations to create score for communicative and affective interactions, discipline, age appropriate toys, child’s time and personal space, physical interaction, routine designed for social meetings. Olsen 92: link between home scores at 2 and iq at 6-8. Lister and dubow 92: link between home at 3-4 and iq at 6-8. Scores on verbal and word increase w school year- not just age as it overlaps w school years but there’s a jump in achievement depending on year
Meso and exo
Meso: weaker link between home scores and iq for elementary than preschool- influence of school environemnt on iq-lister and dubow. Exo: fam income before 3 predicts iq at 5, perisitant ppoverty the most influential. Social class as in 50s class from fathers job predicts iq age 7,9,11 in Aberdeen. Social risk factors sameroff 93:minority, head of house occupation, maternal education/anxiety, father absence, family size, stressful events, parent child interactions, parent perspective of dev, socialisation goals. More risk factors linked to lower iq when SES controlled at 4 and 13
Macro systems
Culture shapes implicit theories of intelligence, differ on what families prioritise. Race: the bell curve, claim races less intelligent, cog elite, more important than SES, Asian Americans higher than African. Prompted task force which says not due to genetics. After adoption, iq of all were in normal range- culture bigger than bio parents. Sex: men more spatial. Bio: brain structure influenced by environment. Also preferences,toys, global inequality, threat, education
Tutorial- infantile amnesia background
Older kids can’t recall their own memories before the age of 5. Sheingold and tenney 82: those 3 years or under didn’t remember the birth of a sibling- emotional event, mothers could confirm. Neural change hyp: immature brain areas like hippo unable to encode. Cueing hyp- early memories only accessible w non verbal cues , those cued w lang are easier to encode later in life. Memory format change hyp: change from non verbal to verbal- making early memories inaccessible
Simcock and hayne 2003
Sim to see what age children can verbally recall. Used novel engaging task which was a shrinking box. Tested 2 and 4 year olds. Both could retrieve verbal and non but verbal harder for 2 year olds. Non verbal superiority in both. Better lang recall: more events. S: engaging, low attrition. W: only young kids, not longitudinal
Medical model
Measures indiv against the norm, works w a deficit view, id issues in indiv
It then uses this to build knowledge as well as develop and provide treatment and support
Cognitive genetics and neuro constructivism perspectives
Cog: how genes and non coding regions affect brain and cog dev, infer how genes affect spec abilities. Neuro: how genes and environment interact over time, argues more complicated than just genes, expression changes over time
Single and double dissociations
Links between genes and traits, single is when one disorder linked to trait. Double is when two disorders linked but one has traits and other has the opposite
Williams syndrome
Genetic, intellectual disability, Co occurs w adhd, dep and asd, onset before end of development. Impaired adaptive functioning: conceptual like iq, reading, writing. Social like empathy, judgement, making friends and practical:personal care, money org. Can use iq as a part. Also physical, personality and cog traits
Traits
1/17500-2000 births, have cardiac, muscoskeltal, renal and dental diffs. Hypercalcemia, facial morphology, small, issues w vision, hyperacusis (sensitive to sound, like music). Personality: friendly, unafriad of strangers, empathetic, accommodating, anxiety. Cog: spatial and numerical, low iq 40-90 but s is lang, facial recognition and social
Language
Can’t draw an elephant but can describe well. Have more expressive lang than ds and more at 17 than 13. Show good grammar- passives, negations. Bellugi 99: more complex grammar than ds, also more uncommon vs common vocab when listing animals. More linguistic affect- engage listener like prosody, also voices, onomatopoeia. Reilly et al 90: more affectivelynrich than normal and ds the least, also enrichment devices. Volterra 2003: parents say they use more incomplete sentences but when told to repeat in experiment did better than normal and ds
Genetic reason
Gene deletion which codes for traits-bellugi 2001: 7 groups within ws, each have different regions of gene deletion and diff traits
Social cognition
Lang skills may come from using more social lang e.g. more socially evaluative, affective states, others behaviour, empathy than controls and ds (jones 2000). Jarvinen-pasley 2008: more social orientation 1-12 as initiate dyadic interactions, more interactions w parents and even more w novel adult
Facial recognition
Karmiloff smith 2004: detect less chnages in configuration than normal 51/75%. But detect changes in features the same as normal 85%. Overall face similar it configuratjins not. Recognition develop similar for features but delayed for configuration
TOM
Porter et al 2008: interest in ppl but perform poorly on verbal and nvb tom tests
Ws struggle w distinguishing ironic jokes from lies, explains reports saying they make poor social judgements , find it hard to maintain friendships
Spatial
Bellugi 92: draw elements well but not together in configuration, can pick up detail of pattern but not overall, can produce smaller shapes but not bigger, struggle w global organisation but ds struggle w local detail
Local processing bias hyp or dorsal stream deficit hyp
Karmiloff smith 2004: : processing diff not deficit, just orient more to local , suggest why face recognition. Dorsal stream: has visuo p stain, object and motion, ventral has object recognition. Atkinson 2003: 4-5 normal worse at motion task so dorsal but fine at 15, ws still struggle at 15 but not all, others impaired on form and motion (global configuration). Meyer lindenberg 2004: ps solve visual spatial tasks in matching objects fit, ws reduced activation in parietal of dorsal in adults
