social psychology
mental disorders
social experiments
cognitive bias
social influence
intelligence
relationships
personality
neuroscience
questions
this is (not) psychology
display tags
A new study underscores the degree to which cognition is shaped by social environment — and, indeed, that cognitive and social processing can’t be disentangled, its authors say.
The study showed how the expression of intelligence is dependent on social setting.
(Source: enterthusiast, via psychology2010)
What kinds of experiences hinder intellectual development and what kinds of environmental “nutrients” promote it?
Here are some of the factors associated with reduced mental ability:
In contrast, a healthy and stimulating environment can raise IQ scores, as several intervention studies with at-risk children have shown. In one longitudinal study called the Abecedarian Project, inner-city children who got lots of mental enrichment at home and in child care or school, starting in infancy, showed signficant IQ gains and had much better school achievement than did children in a control group (Campbell & Ramey, 1995).
In another important study, of abandoned children living in Romanian orphanages, researchers randomly assigned some children to remain in the orphanages and others to move to good foster homes.
By age 4, the fostered children scored dramatically higher on IQ tests that did those left behind. Children who moved before age 2 showed the largest gains, almost 15 points on average. A comparison group of children reared in their biological homes did even better, with average test scores 10 to 20 points higher than those of the foster children (Nelson et al., 2007).
(Since this study was done, Romania has stopped institutionalizing abandoned children younger than 2 years unless the infants are seriously disabled.)
Perhaps the best evidence for the importance of environmental influences on intelligence is the fact that around the world, IQ scores have been climbing steadily for at least three generations (Flynn, 1987, 1999).
The fastest increase in a group’s average IQ scores ever reported has occurred in Kenya, where IQ scores of rural 6- to 8-year-old children jumped about 11 points between 1984 and 1998 (Daley et al., 2003). Genes cannot possibly have changed enough to account for these findings, and most scientists attribute the increases to improvements in education, the growth in jobs requiring abstract thought, and better health.
We see, then, that although heredity may provide the range of a child’s intellectual potential—a Homer Simpson can never become an Einstein—many other factors affect where in that range the child will fall.
from: Invitation to Psychology by Carole Wade, Carol Tavris
from: Invitation to Psychology - Carole Wade, Carol Tavris
Study after study has shown that genes can affect behavior and mental life. Identical twins separated at birth (who share their genes but not their environment) are similar in their intellectual talents, their personality traits (such as introversion, conscientiousness, and antagonism), their average level of lifelong happiness, and personal quirks such as giggling incessantly or flushing the toilet both before and after using it. Identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than fraternal twins (who share half their genes). And biological siblings (who share half their genes) are more similar than adopted siblings (who share none of their genes). It’s not only personality and intelligence that are partly heritable, but susceptibility to psychological maladies such as schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and major depression.
The discovery that genes have something to do with behavior came as a shock in an era in which people thought that the mind of a newborn was a blank slate and that anyone could do anything if only they strove hard enough. And it continues to set off alarm bells. Many people worry about a Brave New World in which parents or governments will try to re-engineer human nature. Others see genes as a threat to free will and personal responsibility, citing headlines such as “Man’s genes made him kill, his lawyers claim.” Behavioral geneticists are sometimes picketed, censored, or compared to Nazis.
With increasing knowledge of how the genome works, many beliefs about ourselves will indeed have to be rethought. But the worst fears of the genophobes are misplaced. It is easy to exaggerate the significance of behavioral genetics for our lives.
For one thing, genes cannot pull the strings of behavior directly. Behavior is caused by the activity of the brain, and the most the genes can do is affect its wiring, its size and shape, and its sensitivity to hormones and other molecules. Among the brain circuits laid down by the genes are ones that reflect on memories, current circumstance, and the anticipated consequences of various courses of action and that select behavior accordingly, in an intricate and not entirely predictable way. These circuits are what we call “free will,” and providing them with information about the likely consequences of behavioral options is what we call “holding people responsible.” All normal people have this circuitry, and that is why the existence of genes with effects on behavior should not be allowed to erode responsibility in the legal system or in everyday life.
Also, don’t count on the I’ll-let-you-go-now gene –or any other single gene with a large behavioral effect — being identified any time soon. Behavioral genetics has uncovered a paradox. Studies that measure similarities among twins and adoptees reliably show strong effects of sharing many genes (such as half a genome, or all of one). The outcome is so reliable that behavioral geneticists now speak of the First Law of their field: that all behavioral traits are partly heritable.
But studies that try to isolate a single gene for a behavioral trait have been fickle; many of putative genes-for-X have not held up in replications. Genes must exert their effects by acting together in complex combinations. A rough analogy: a computer program can have a trait, such as being easy to use, without necessarily having a single magical programming instruction that makes any program easy to use when added and any program hard to use when omitted.
So psychological engineering is more remote than the futurologists would have you believe. Though musical talent may be partly heritable, there is probably no single gene for musical talent that ambitious parents can have implanted into their unborn children. It might take hundreds or thousands of the right genes, with a different combination needed for each child.
Finally, the fact that genes matter doesn’t mean that other things don’t matter. Some of these causes are obvious. There are no genes for speaking English or for being a Presbyterian (though there may be sets of genes for verbal skill and religiosity). These depend entirely on one’s culture. Others are less obvious, such as germs, accidents, chance encounters in life, and random events in the development of the brain in utero.
And still other environmental factors may not act as we think they do. It’s easy to assume that the variation in behavior that is not caused by genes must be caused by parents. But it’s been surprisingly hard to demonstrate any long-term effects of growing up in a particular family within a culture. Identical twins reared together are similar, but they are not literally identical: one may be more anxious than the other, one may be gay and the other straight. This shows that genes are not everything – but since these twins grow up in the same family, it also shows that what isn’t explained by genes isn’t explained by family influences either. Similarly, children need to hear English to acquire it. But if their parents are immigrants, they end up with the accent of their peers, not their parents.
Though the effects of genes may be easy to overestimate, they are also easy to underestimate. Many failed utopias of the twentieth century dreamed of nurturing a “new man” free of selfishness, family ties, and individual differences. Some psychotherapists promise what they cannot deliver, such as transforming a shy person into a bold one or a sad sack into a barrel of monkeys.
None of this means that social and personal improvement are a waste of time. Even if each of us is born with a range of temperament and talent, we can try to reach the best point in that range. And even if we have a nature, part of that nature is an open-ended ingenuity that can think up possible solutions to our problems. Using our genes as an excuse for fatalism is unwise. But so is pretending that they don’t matter at all.
Brain development is still incomplete at birth. Early experiences that stimulate the brain are involved in enhancing its neural growth. A child’s brain develops its full potential with exposure to enriching experiences in early childhood. These stimuli received during the early parts of childhood are thus crucial to brain growth and connections made in nerve cell networks. Studies indicate that early exposure to musical training helps a child’s brain reach its potential by generating neural connections utilized in abstract reasoning.
The reasoning skills required for a test in spatial reasoning are the same ones children use when they listen to music. Children use these reasoning skills to order the notes in their brain to form the melodies. Also, some concepts of math must be understood in order to understand music. Experts speculate that listening to music exercises the same parts of the brain that handle mathematics, logic, and higher level reasoning.
Below are a few studies reinforcing the correlation between music and intelligence.
Music vs. Computers
In 1997 a study involving three groups of preschoolers was conducted to determine the effect of music versus computer training on early childhood development. One group received private piano/keyboard training and singing lessons. A second group received computer training, and a third/control group did not receive any special training. The group that received the piano/keyboard training scored 34% higher on tests measuring spatial-temporal ability than either of the other two groups. These results suggest that music enhances certain higher brain functions, particularly abstract reasoning skills, required in math and science.
Naming Body Parts
The use of music in training four and five year old children yielded the highest improvement in the ability to name body parts. A control group did not receive any training, a second group received verbal instructions, and a third group received verbal instructions plus acting out movements. The final group had a song coordinated with the verbal instructions and a dance coordinated with the acting out movements. Although the three experimental groups displayed an increase in their ability to name body parts the music group exhibited the highest degree of improvement.
Kodaly Training
First grade students received extensive Kodaly training for seven months. Kodaly training involves the use of folk songs and emphasis on melodic and rhythmic elements. At the end of seven months the experimental group had higher reading scores than the control group, which did not receive any special treatment. Not only did the seven month instruction increase reading scores, but continued musical training proved to be beneficial. The experimental group continued to show higher reading scores with continued training.
SAT scores
Data reveals a correlation between arts education, including music, and SAT scores. Students who were involved in arts education achieved higher SAT scores. The longer students were involved in arts education, the higher the increase in SAT scores. This study also correlated arts education with higher scores in standardized tests, reading, English, history, citizenship, and geography. An individual’s socioeconomic status plays a role in the attainment of arts education. The higher an individual’s socioeconomic status, the greater the likelihood of participation in arts education. To account for the advantage given by a relatively higher socioeconomic status, the same studies were done with a focus on students with a relatively lower socioeconomic status. The results indicated that students with a relatively lower socioeconomic status, that were exposed to arts education, had an advantage over those students without any arts education which was proportionally equal to the students with a relatively higher socioeconomic status and exposure to arts education.
Mozart
Music exposure affects older students as well. Three groups of college students were exposed to either Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos, K448, a relaxation tape, or silence. The group exposed to the Mozart piece was the only group to achieve an increase on the spatial IQ test. Further studies revealed that neither dance music nor taped short stories produced an increase in spatial IQ similar to the Mozart piece. The increase in spatial IQ appears to be related to some unique aspects of the Mozart piece rather than music in general. The experimenters chose the piece because they felt its musical structure facilitated cognitive processing in the brain and music lacking sufficient complexity would result in interference with abstract reasoning.
Music may not only be related to intelligence by its stimulation of the brain, but it may also increase intelligence by the type of attitudes, interests, and discipline it fosters in children. Some believe that music gives children the self-confidence to achieve and that self-confidence spreads to other areas of education outside of music. With the increase of self-confidence, children may change their attitudes and aspirations toward academics. Music is also believed to increase interest in academic learning. One study revealed that when children were exposed to traditional Japanese and Chinese music, or other slow pieces, and paired with movements, such as Yoga and Tai chi, children became calmer and were better able to focus. This calming effect allows children to have a greater focus on learning. Music also improves students’ listening skills. Furthermore, discipline required to learn and play music is beneficial to academic achievement.
Bedtimes and wake-up times for Americans in their 20s by IQ.
Very Dull (IQ < 75)
Weekday: 11:41 P.M.-7:20 A.M.
Weekend: 12:35 A.M.-10:09 A.M.
Normal (90 < IQ < 110)
Weekday: 12:10 A.M.-7:32 A.M.
Weekend: 1:13 A.M.-10:14 A.M.
Very Bright (IQ > 125)
Weekday: 12:29 A.M.-7:52 A.M.
Weekend: 1:44 A.M.-11:07 A.M.
The term twice exceptional refers to children who are exceptional both because of their intellectual gifts and because of their special needs.
A 2e child usually refers to a child who, alongside being considered intellectually above average, is formally diagnosed with one or more disabilities.
The disabilities are varied, for example
dyslexia
obsessive-compulsive disorder
attention deficit disorder, with or without hyperactivity
Asperger syndrome
diagnoses of anxiety or depression
or any other disability interfering with the student’s ability to learn effectively in a traditional environment.
The combination of marked strengths and weaknesses found in 2e children can result in behavior and academic performance that puzzle parents, teachers, and even some medical and mental health professionals. Because their disabilities or deficits are often not apparent to those around them, twice-exceptional children may appear to be uninterested, lazy, distracted, or disruptive in class. They might present any of the three profiles identified by educator and researcher Susan Baum:
In each situation, the 2e student’s strengths help to compensate for deficits; the deficits, on the other hand, make the child’s strengths less apparent.
There is no clear-cut profile of twice-exceptional children because the nature and causes of twice exceptionality are so varied. Some 2e children may have no formal diagnosis, but do have learning differences of other kinds, such as in learning style or preference, that make it hard to function in a standard classroom. This variation among twice-exceptional children makes it difficult to determine just how many of them there might be. Some estimates place the number at 2 to 5 percent of all gifted children, while others believe it to be higher.
Intelligence, which is a major component of giftedness, is influenced through a complex interaction of combinations of many genes and many different environmental contexts. Intelligence is a general cognitive ability that supports the fact that most reliable measures of cognitive abilities intercorrelate in some way. It is generally agreed that giftedness may have a genetic component.
Adoption and twin studies have provided many valuable insights into the genetic component of intelligence. Studies of first degree relatives adopted apart show a correlation of .22, which is about half that of relatives who live together. Adopted children who are not related but reared together show a correlation of about .23 to genetically unrelated parents and siblings.
Heritability from adoption data is 44% for families, 52% for fraternal twins in a shared environment, and 72% for identical twins reared apart. The existing data for identical twins reared apart has been collected from studies conducted in adulthood and because heritability studies show that adults have higher heritability results than children, this number may be inflated. The question of whether intelligence has a genetic component has been confirmed through numerous studies. More research is necessary to determine the exact processes by which genetic dispositions interact with the environment.
Some children are born with innately higher intelligence levels than others. These children are often labeled as gifted or talented. Many researchers have investigated the early characteristics of gifted children. Hollingworth (1942) reported that 78 percent of the teachers agree that early detection of giftedness can be possible during early development. Children as young as preschool age tend to seek out highly stimulating environments. According to Raine, Reynolds, Venables, & Mednick (2002) increased stimulation seeking at age 3 years is associated with an increase in cognitive and scholastic test performance later in development. The advantages of identifying intellectual abilities of gifted children at an earlier age will allow educators to place them in the developmental classes that encourage and promote exploration in the domain of their giftedness.
Tannenbaum claims that the environment plays a major role in the nurturance of giftedness or higher intelligence. Giftedness and talent require a special environment just as special education would. The environment must be enriching and encouraging which will allow the child to mature through experience and exploration. The environment must facilitate creative activity in a developmentally appropriate manner which would call for classrooms to be designed for developmental levels as opposed to age or grade levelling. This type of environment with differentiated learning could result from acceleration, lateral enrichment, and special grouping. Also, a developmentally appropriate environment for the gifted child will reduce behavior problems among preschoolers due to an increased engagement and internal motivation for learning.
Furthermore, it is behavioral exploration of the environment that is indicative of the child’s intellectual ability later in life. The child’s innate motivation to engage in physical activity (hands-on learning) marks a curiosity which motivates task persistence. The increased physical exploration in a social play environment and goal-directed behavior in the stimulating environment facilitate superior cognitive functioning. In addition, gifted children will become high achievers when their interests are piqued by doing what they are innately motivated to do, empowering them to continue trying new skills. Furthermore, when gifted or talented children are supported by educational staff, their community, peers and families, they have higher possibilities to develop their cognitive abilities.
Isolation is one of the main challenges faced by gifted individuals, especially those with no social network of gifted peers. In order to gain popularity, gifted children will often try to hide their abilities to win social approval. Strategies include underachievement (discussed below) and the use of less sophisticated vocabulary when among same-age peers than when among family members or other trusted individuals.
The isolation experienced by gifted individuals may not be caused by giftedness itself, but by society’s response to giftedness. Plucker and Levy have noted that, “in this culture, there appears to be a great pressure for people to be ‘normal’ with a considerable stigmaassociated with giftedness or talent.” To counteract this problem, gifted education professionals recommend creating a peer group based on common interests and abilities. The earlier this occurs, the more effective it is likely to be in preventing isolation.
Perfectionism is another issue for gifted individuals. It is encouraged by the fact that gifted individuals tend to be easily successful in much of what they do.
Healthy perfectionism refers to having high standards, a desire to achieve, conscientiousness, or high levels of responsibility. It is likely to be a virtue rather than a problem, even if gifted children may have difficulty with healthy perfectionism because they set standards that would be appropriate to their mental age (the level at which they think), but they cannot always meet them because they are bound to a younger body, or the social environment is restrictive. In such cases, outsiders may call some behavior perfectionism, while for the gifted this may be their standard.
“Perfectionism becomes desirable when it stimulates the healthy pursuit of excellence.”
Unhealthy perfectionism stems from equating one’s worth as a human being to one’s achievements, and the simultaneous belief that any work less than perfect is unacceptable and will lead to criticism. Because perfection in the majority of human activities is neither desirable, nor possible, this cognitive distortion creates self-doubt, performance anxiety and ultimately procrastination.
The unhealthy perfectionism can be triggered or further exaggerated by parents, siblings, school comrades with good or ill intentions. Parents are usually proud and will praise extensively the gifted child, on the other hand siblings, comrades and school bullies will generally become jealous of the intellectual ease of the gifted child and tease him or her about any minor imperfection in his work, strength, clothes, appearance, or behavior. Either approach—positive reinforcement from parents, or negative reactions from siblings and comrades for minor flaws—will push these kids into considering their worth to their peers as equal to their abilities and consider any imperfection as a serious defect in themselves. The unhealthy perfectionism can be further exaggerated when the child counter-attacks those who mocked him with their own weapons, i.e. their lower abilities, thus creating disdain in himself for low or even average performance.
There are many theories that try to explain the correlation between perfectionism and giftedness. Perfectionism becomes a problem as it frustrates and inhibits achievements.
D. E. Hamachek identified six specific, overlapping types of behavior associated with perfectionism. They include:
There is often a stark gap between the abilities of the gifted individual and his or her actual accomplishments. Many gifted students will perform extremely well on standardized or reasoning tests, only to fail a class exam. This disparity can result from various factors, such as loss of interest in too-easy classes or negative social consequences of being perceived as smart. Underachievement can also result from emotional or psychological factors, including depression, anxiety, perfectionism, or self-sabotage.
An often overlooked contributor to underachievement is undiagnosed learning differences. A gifted individual is less likely to be diagnosed with a learning disorder than a non gifted classmate, as the gifted child can more readily compensate for his/her paucities. This masking effect is dealt with by understanding that a difference of one standard deviation between scores constitutes a learning disability even if all of the scores are above average. In addition, many gifted children may underachieve because they have grown to believe that because of their intelligence, things should always come easily to them, and thus may lag behind their non-gifted peers in the work ethic required to learn things that don’t come immediately to them. One apparently effective way to attempt to reverse underachievement in gifted children includes educating teachers to provide enrichment projects based on students’ strengths and interests without attracting negative attention from peers.
It has been thought in the past that there is a correlation between giftedness and depression or suicide. This has generally not been proven. As Reis and Renzulli mention,
“With the exception of creatively gifted adolescents who are talented in writing or the visual arts, studies do not confirm that gifted individuals manifest significantly higher or lower rates or severity of depression than those for the general population…Gifted children’s advanced cognitive abilities, social isolation, sensitivity, and uneven development may cause them to face some challenging social and emotional issues, but their problem-solving abilities, advanced social skills, moral reasoning, out-of-school interests, and satisfaction in achievement may help them to be more resilient.”
Also, no research points to suicide rates being higher in gifted adolescents than other adolescents. However, a number of people have noted a higher incidence of existential depression, which is depression due to seemingly highly abstract concerns such as the finality of death, the ultimate unimportance of individual people, and the meaning (or lack thereof) of life. Gifted individuals are also more likely to feel existential anxiety.
However, numerous studies have shown that an active depressive state impairs cognition because it retards neurogenesis in the hippocampus,
