Folk theories of intelligence: When should teaching begin

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lancy
2004 ◽  
Vol 359 (1449) ◽  
pp. 1427-1434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Sternberg ◽  
Elena L. Grigorenko

This paper discusses the relationship between culture and intelligence. The main message of the paper is that intelligence cannot fully or even meaningfully be understood outside its cultural context. Behaviour that is considered intelligent in one culture may be considered unintelligent in another culture, and vice versa . Moreover, people in different cultures have different implicit (folk) theories of intelligence, so may not even mean the same thing by the word. The relationships between different aspects of intelligence can vary across cultures, with correlations that are positive in one setting proving to be negative in another. The paper opens with a general discussion of issues regarding the relationship between the two concepts. It then describes the theory of successful intelligence, which motivates our work on the interface between culture and intelligence. Finally, the article draws some conclusions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivar Bråten ◽  
Andreas Lien ◽  
John Nietfeld

Abstract. In two experiments with Norwegian undergraduates and one experiment with US undergraduates, we examined the potential effects of brief task instructions aligned with incremental and entity views of intelligence on students’ performance on a rational thinking task. The research demonstrated that even brief one-shot task instructions that deliver a mindset about intelligence intervention can be powerful enough to affect students’ performance on such a task. This was only true for Norwegian male students, however. Moreover, it was the task instruction aligned with an entity theory of intelligence that positively affected Norwegian male students’ performance on the rational thinking task, with this unanticipated finding speaking to the context- and culture-specificity of implicit theories of intelligence interventions.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Miele ◽  
Bridgid Finn ◽  
Daniel C. Molden ◽  
Janet Metcalfe

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Schmank ◽  
Sara Anne Goring ◽  
Kristof Kovacs ◽  
Andrew R. A. Conway

In a recent publication in the Journal of Intelligence, Dennis McFarland mischaracterized previous research using latent variable and psychometric network modeling to investigate the structure of intelligence. Misconceptions presented by McFarland are identified and discussed. We reiterate and clarify the goal of our previous research on network models, which is to improve compatibility between psychological theories and statistical models of intelligence. WAIS-IV data provided by McFarland were reanalyzed using latent variable and psychometric network modeling. The results are consistent with our previous study and show that a latent variable model and a network model both provide an adequate fit to the WAIS-IV. We therefore argue that model preference should be determined by theory compatibility. Theories of intelligence that posit a general mental ability (general intelligence) are compatible with latent variable models. More recent approaches, such as mutualism and process overlap theory, reject the notion of general mental ability and are therefore more compatible with network models, which depict the structure of intelligence as an interconnected network of cognitive processes sampled by a battery of tests. We emphasize the importance of compatibility between theories and models in scientific research on intelligence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document