A more inclusive approach to theorising intelligence

• Inclusive education: why is this important?

  Promoting inclusive education

  • Findings from Western Psychology shouldn’t be assumed to be universal
  • Findings from Europe and America are not the only findings and our worldview shouldn't be shaped by them
• Inclusive education: why is this important?

  Specifically for intelligence:

  Conceptions of intelligence change depending on what area of the world you live or grew up in.

  • What are the effects of this on the measurement of intelligence?
  • What are the effects on that for the policies of the country?
  • What are the effects of that then on the people from that country?
  • What are the implications then of making comparisons between (or within) cultures?
• Implicit theories of intelligence in other cultures: Social skills

  Intelligence in terms of the self and the social world:

  • Western views → good cognitive skills and good memory refer only to the individual
  • Eastern views → These ideas extend to social, historical and spiritual aspects of everyday interactions, knowledge and problem-solving. Focus on social responsibility and cooperativeness.
  • The word for intelligence in Zimbabwe, ngware, means to be wise in social relationships.
• Fang and Keats (1987): Compared the conceptions of intelligence in Chinese and Australian adults.

  • Similarities → Willingness to think, observation, and independent thinking = intelligence.
  • Differences → Australian adults thought problem-solving and logical reasoning = intelligence
  • → Chinese adults thought the ability to learn, analytical ability, sharp thinking & displaying confidence = intelligence.
• Lim and colleagues (2002) → Looked at implicit intelligence theories in >400 Korean adults

  Korean adults emphasize social skills more so than Americans and other Asian samples.
• More than just including social abilities

  Implicit theories of Intelligence in India (Baral & Das, 2004):

  • Intelligence = high levels of thinking, judgement and decision -making.
  • BUT → It’s the way these aspects of intelligence interact with each other that is crucial in defining intelligence. This optimal interaction is thought to result from self-awareness and consciousness.
  • Intelligence = also thought to show an appreciation of others, politeness, interest in others and modesty.
• Implicit theories: Critiques

  Implicit theories of intelligence in students from Chinese - vs. English -language schools (Chen & Chen, 1988):

  • Both say non -verbal reasoning, verbal reasoning, social skills, numeracy and memory = intelligence
  • However, students from the Chinese -language schools rated verbal skills as less important
• Implicit theories of intelligence: Cultures are not countries: Yang and Sternberg (1997) - Intelligence in two philosophical traditions in China:

  • Confucian traditions → Intelligence through benevolence (an inclination to perform kind, charitable acts), doing the right thing, behaving properly.
  • Taoist tradition → Intelligence through freedom from traditional dimensions of judgement, the ability to be perceptive and responsive to change in circumstances and the ability to show full knowledge and understanding, not only of oneself but of the world around oneself. Humility and self knowledge.
• Implicit theories of intelligence: Cultures are not countries: Okagaki and Sternberg (1993) - Intelligence in California:

  • Asked 359 parents what the qualities of an intelligence child are.
  • Anglo-American parents gave higher value to cognitive attributes compared to all others.
  • Parents of Latinx backgrounds were more likely to equate intelligence with social competence
  • Parents from Asian backgrounds were more likely to equate it with motivation, self management, and cognitive skill.
• Some thoughts...

  • problem that lots of this research was done in other cultures, but not necessarily by researchers from those cultures
  • Maltby and colleagues end their section of the textbook stating that the research in this area is quite dated, and pose the questions: ”We must ask what might happen if we compared these countries today – would we find different results? Would we begin to see the convergence of implicit theories of intelligence across cultures?”