Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:46:28.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Reductionism versus Charting: Ways of Examining the Role of Lower-Order Cognitive Processes in Intelligence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2009

Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Jean E. Pretz
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Following on Locke's theory that the senses are the building blocks of thinking and knowledge, Galton (1883) proposed that fine differences in sensory discrimination should be related to individual differences in cognitive ability. Although the evidence accumulated by the beginning of the twentieth century strongly rejected this proposal, near the end of that same century, there was a re-emergence of related views. These views have always been motivated by a desire to uncover the biological roots of intelligence.

The groundwork for a renewed interest in the relationship between lower-order processes and intelligence was set in the 1970s with developments that eventually crystallized into different programmatic orientations and aims. One of these was frankly reductionist and very much in a Galtonian tradition. The other approach — charting — was motivated by a realization that, for historical and technical reasons, the domain of cognition was far from being covered in all its breadth in psychometric studies of intelligence; the task of mapping it out is far from being finished. In the late 1980s research on cognitive aging, which is somewhat removed from the traditional area of intelligence, also moved in the direction of linking lower-order processes and intelligence. This work, however, combined both reductionist and charting features. My aim in this chapter is to review recent developments within these three orientations and consider implications for psychometric theories of intelligence.

Contemporary work in all three orientations has been influenced by developments that saw changes in the interpretation of “sensory.”

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognition and Intelligence
Identifying the Mechanisms of the Mind
, pp. 51 - 67
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

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.)

References

Acton, G. S., & Schroeder, D. H. (2001). Sensory discrimination as related to general intelligence. Intelligence, 29, 263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, K. J., Luszcz, M. A., & Sanchez, L. (2001). Two-year decline in vision but not hearing is associated with memory decline in very old adults in a population-based sample. Gerontology, 47, 289–293CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anstey, K., Stankov, L., & Lord, S. (1993). Primary aging, secondary aging and intelligence. Psychology and Aging, 8, 562–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltes, P. B., & Lindenberger, U. (1997). Emergence of a powerful connection between sensory and cognitive functions across the adult lifespan: A new window to the study of cognitive aging? Psychology and Aging, 12, 12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1976). Psychometric tests as cognitive tasks: A new “Structure of Intellect.” In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 27–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Danthiir, V., Roberts, R. D., Pallier, G., & Stankov, L. (2001). What the nose knows: Olfaction and cognitive abilities. Intelligence, 29, 337–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deary, I. J. (2000). Looking down on human intelligence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963). Manual and kit of reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty. London: Dent
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books
Grudnik, J. L., & Kranzler, J. H. (2001). Meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and inspection time. Intelligence, 29, 523–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behaviour: A neuropsychological theory. New York: Wiley
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The ‘g’ factor. Westport, CT: Praeger
Kleitman, S., & Stankov, L. (2001). Ecological and person-driven aspects of metacognitive processes in test-taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 321–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S.-H. Jordanova, & Lindenberger, U. (1998). From good senses to good sense: A link between tactile information processing and intelligence. Intelligence, 26, 99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luciano, M., Smith, G. A., Wright, M. J., Geffen, G. M., Geffen, L. B., & Martin, N. (2001). On the heritability of inspection time and its correlation with IQ: Twin study. Intelligence, 29, 443–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, D., & Petrill, S. A. (1999). Elementary cognitive tasks and their roles in ‘g’ estimates. Intelligence, 27, 157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsiske, M., Klumb, P., & Baltes, J. M. (1997). Everyday activity patterns and sensory functioning in old age. Psychology and Aging, 12, 444–457CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nettelbeck, T. (2001). Correlation between inspection time and psychometric abilities: A personal interpretation. Intelligence, 29, 459–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallier, G., Roberts, R., & Stankov, L. (2000). Biological vs. psychometric intelligence: Halstead's (1947) distinction re-visited. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15(3), 205–226Google Scholar
Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V., Kleitman, S., Knezevic, G., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. (2002). The role of individual differences in the realism of confidence judgments. Journal of General Psychology, 122, 1–39Google Scholar
Roberts, R. D., & Stankov, L. (1999). Individual differences in speed of mental processing and human cognitive abilities: Towards a taxonomic model. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 1–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. D., Pallier, G., & Goff, G. N. (1999). Sensory processes within the structure of human abilities. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 339–370). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Roberts, R. D., Stankov, L., Pallier, G., & Dolph, B. (1997). Charting the cognitive sphere: Tactile/kinesthetic performance within the structure of intelligence. Intelligence, 25, 111–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L. (1980). Psychometric factors as cognitive tasks: A note on Carroll's ‘New Structure of Intellect’. Intelligence, 4, 65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L. (1998). Calibration curves, scatterplots and the distinction between general knowledge and perceptual tests. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 28–51Google Scholar
Stankov, L. (2002a). ‘g’: A diminutive general. In R. Sternberg & E. Grigorenko (Eds.), General factor of intelligence: How general is it? Los Angeles: Erlbaum
Stankov, L. (2002b). Complexity in intelligence. In R. Sternberg & T. Lubart (Eds), Models of intelligence for the new millennium. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Stankov, L., & Anstey, K. (1997). Health and cognitive aging in Australia. Australian Journal on Aging, 16, 34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L., & Horn, J. L. (1980). Human abilities revealed through auditory tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L., Seizova-Cajic, T., & Roberts, R. (2001). Tactile and kinesthetic perceptual processes within the taxonomy of human abilities. Intelligence, 29, 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×