Developing Childhood Proclivities into Adult Competencies: The Overlooked Multiplier Effect

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615801.005

3 - Developing Childhood Proclivities into Adult Competencies: The Overlooked Multiplier Effect

The Overlookied Multiplier Effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Stephen J. Ceci ,

Susan M. Barnett and

Tomoe Kanaya

Edited by

Robert J. Sternberg and

Elena L. Grigorenko

Show author details

Stephen J. Ceci: Affiliation:
Cornell University
Susan M. Barnett: Affiliation:
Cornell University
Tomoe Kanaya: Affiliation:
Cornell University
Robert J. Sternberg: Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Elena L. Grigorenko: Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we tackle a problem that has been at the heart of the debate over the relative influence of genes and environments in producing cognitive competencies. Our goal is to attempt to reconcile the disparate claims of behavior genetics researchers who stress the prepotency of genes in producing intellectual competence (for example, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegan, and McGue, 1998) with those whom Scarr (1997) refers to as “socialization theorists” because of their stance on the crucial role of the social and material environment in shaping developmental outcomes.

Our means of making this reconciliation is to describe recent efforts by diverse scholars to explain cognitive growth in terms of theories, models, and metaphors that are inherently multiplicative, more so than prior ones. We do not intend to delve into a comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each model or metaphor, as that is not our goal, but instead we want to make the point that various researchers, coming from very different orientations, have found the need to postulate similar types of multiplier effects to account for cognitive growth across a wide range of attainments (reading, intelligence, mathematics, motoric).

In the treatment that follows we use the terms “proclivities,” “penchants,” and “abilities” interchangeably, to refer to basic, underlying “resource pools” that are undoubtedly biologically based. Thus, we speak of a newborn's penchant, ability, or proclivity to stare, attend, remember, and process the perceptual world.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise , pp. 70 - 92

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615801.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one?Child Development, 59, 87–96CrossRef Google Scholar

Bast, J. & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1373–1399CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Lykken, D. T., Tellegan, A. C., & McGue, M. (1998). Genes, drives, environment and experience: EPD theory – revised. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Psychometrics and social issues concerning intellectual talent (pp. 141–173). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1993). Heredity, environment, and the question “how.” In R. Plomin & G. McClearn (Eds.), Nature nurture & psychology (pp 313–324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J., (1994). Nature-nurture in developmental perspective: A bioecological theory. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586CrossRef Google Scholar

Ceci, S. J. (1996). On intelligence: A bio-ecological treatise on intellectual development (2d ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Chandler, M. J., & Boutilier, R. G., (1992). The development of dynamic system reasoning. Human Development, 35, 121–137CrossRef Google Scholar

Cook, T. K., Appleton, H., Conner, R., Shaffer, A., Tamkin, G., & Weber, S. J. (1975). Sesame Street revisited. NY: Russell Sage Foundation Publication

Detterman, D. K. (2000). Tests, affirmative action in university admissions, and the American way. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1) 44–55CrossRef Google Scholar

Dickens, W. T. & Flynn, J. R. (2001a). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: The IQ paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108(2), 346–69CrossRef Google Scholar

Dickens, W. T., & Flynn, J. R., (2001b, April 21). Great leap forward, New Scientist, vol. 170, no 2287, pp. 44–47Google Scholar

Ehrenberg, R. E., Brewer, D. J., Gamoran, A., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 1–30CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch Roemer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406CrossRef Google Scholar

Flynn, J. (2001). The history of the American mind in the 20th century: A scenario to explain IQ gains over time and a case for the irrelevance of g. Otago, New Zealand. Unpublished manuscript

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking Penguin, Inc

Hamilton, B. H., Nickerson, J. A., & Owan, H. (2001, April 19). Team incentives and worker heterogeneity: An empirical analysis of the impact of teams on productivity and participation. Organizational Behavior Workshop, Cornell University. Unpublished manuscript

Hativa, N. (1988). Computer-based drill and practice in arithmetic: Widening the gap between high-and low-achieving students. American Educational Review Journal, 25, 366–397CrossRef Google Scholar

Howe, M. J. A. (1989). Fragments of genius: The strange feats of idiots savants. London: Routledge

Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(3), 399–442CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Jensen, A. R. (1997). The puzzle of nongenetic variance. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 42–88). New York: Cambridge University Press

Lazar, I., & Darlington, R. B., (1982). Lasting effects of early education: A report from the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47(2-sup-3), 1–151CrossRef Google Scholar

Loehlin, J. C., Horn, J. M., & Willerman, L. (1997). Heredity, environment, and IQ in the Texas Adoption Project. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 105–125). New York: Cambridge University Press

McClearn, G. E., Johansson, B., Berg, S., Pederson, N. L., Petrill, S. A., & Plomin, R. (1997). Substantial genetic influence on cognitive abilities in twins 80 or more years old. Science, 276, 1560–1563CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63CrossRef Google Scholar

Petrill, S. A., Plomin, R., Berg, S., Johansson, B., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., & McClearn, G. E., (1998). Genetic and environmental relationship between general and specific cognitive abilities in twins age 80 and older. Psychological Science, 9, 183–189CrossRef Google Scholar

Reifman, A. (2000). Revisiting The Bell Curve. Psycoloquy, 11Google Scholar

Riksen-Walraven, J. M., (1978). Effects of caregiver behavior on habituation rate and self-efficacy in infants. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1, 105–130CrossRef Google Scholar

Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Development and individual differences. Child Development, 63, 1–19CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Scarr, S. (1997). Behavior-genetic and socialization theories of intelligence: Truce and reconciliation. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 3–41). New York: Cambridge University Press

Scarr, S. & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435Google Scholar PubMed

Shaywitz, B. A., Holford, T. R., Holahan, J. M., Fletcher, J. M., Steubing, K. K., Francis, D. J., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1995). A Matthew effect for IQ but not for reading: Results from a longitudinal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 894–906CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (1993). A dynamic systems approach to development: Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406CrossRef Google Scholar

Stoolmiller, M. (1998). Correcting estimates of shared environmental variance for range restriction in adoption studies using a truncated multivariate normal model. Behavior Genetics, 28(6), 429–441CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Implications of the restricted range of family environments for estimates of heritability and nonshared environment in behavior-genetic adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 392–409CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Thelen, E. (1992). Development as a dynamic system. Current Directions in Cognitive Science, 1(6), 189–193CrossRef Google Scholar

Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Geert, P. (1991). A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological Review, 98(1), 3–53CrossRef Google Scholar

Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes. Winchester, MA: Allen & Unwin

Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). Are Americans becoming more or less alike?: Trends in race, class, and ability differences in intelligence. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1226–1235CrossRef Google Scholar