Journal Clinical Psychiatry and Cognitive Psychology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +44 7460731551

Mini Review - Journal Clinical Psychiatry and Cognitive Psychology (2021) Volume 5, Issue 1

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOMETRICTHEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE

Kattekola Prasannalaxmi

Department of Pharmacology, Gokaraju Rangaraju College of Pharmacy, Osmania University Hyderabad, India.

*Correspondence to:

Kattekola Prasannalaxmi M Pharmacy,

Department of Pharmacology,

Hyderabad India

Email: [email protected],

Tel 8786456788 

Accepted on January 28, 2021

Abstract

Introduces fundamental issues in cognitive  psychology. the belief that that the principles of cognitive psychology should be introduced in such a way that students see their direct pertinence to and potential impact upon human affairs. It is aimed principally at the undergraduate who is taking a basic course in cognitive psychology, in memory and cognition, or in human memory.

Keywords

Psychology, Psychometric theories, Cognitive Psychology

Introduction

Cognitive studies suggest as regards the different theories of intelli-gence? Evidence is against a completely unitary view of intelligence. The largenumber of dissociations documented by experimental and neuropsychologicalstudies show a mind that has to be fractionated. Low level processes, likesensory discrimination, rapid naming, etc ., can be described as independentmodules largely automatic, out of the control of central processes and transfer effects [1]. People who are very good in a particular ability are not necessarily goodin other basic abilities. This evidence could be con-sidered in favour of the popular view that there are different forms of intelli-gence. For example the multiple intelligence theory assumedthat there are different and independent forms of intelligence substantiallydefined on the basis of the domain involved: numbers vs. language vs. logicalconcepts vs. music vs. space vs. motor representations [2].

Documented that a complete separation offunctions is easier for low level processes than for high level processes. The same type of description and differentiation given for basic skills does not applyto high level processes, like reasoning, cognitive control, etc. These abilities arenot based only on automatic processes, they can be at least partially transferredand involve a series of interconnected operations [3]. In this respect it is hard todemonstrate that domain specific forms of intelligence all have the same cog-nitive status and that they also share the same status with more domain freeskills concerning reasoning, problem solving, and general knowledge. Peoplecan still be very efficient in a large range of situations, even if they are poor inmusical or kinaest hetic intelligence, but this is not true, at least not to the sameextent, if they are poor in logical or verbal intelligence [4].

The studies of human intelligence, one could simplify theissue by asserting that only high level processes define intelligence, whereas theother ones offer a simple support to intelligent operations but are neither criticalto intelligence nor can they be easily differentiated between people [5]. simple conclusion would underestimate the importance of the extraordinarymanifestations of intelligence associated with specific forms of intelligence, forexample in the areas of music, art, or calculation, etc. Furthermore, there issubstantial evidence showing that basic automatised computations, likeimmediate memory or speedy processing can explain an important portion of the variance in human intel ligence asmeasured by traditional tests.In other words, it seem s that neither unitary, nor multiple models of intelli-gence are in complete accordance with the evidence emerging from studies [6].

hierarchical representation ofintelligence, component seems more central since the authors suggested,in their ``investment'' theory, that the Gf component allows for the developmentof the Gc. In fact, Gf refers to the mind's ability to make a series of operations(like classifications, seriations, analogical reasoning) without the need to refer topreexisting knowledge. On the contrary, Gc refers to the mind's operationswhich strongly rely on knowledge, i.e., on cultural background and on stimulusfamiliarity, which in turn have been developed through the critical contributionof Gf. (Examples of contexts and tasks measuring Gc can be found in the areasof numerical, mechanical, and lexical abilities.) The two-factor theory offers aseries of interesting elements of attraction. In p articular it seems able to explainage variations in intelligence, because both factors develop with age but verysoon the Gf starts a slow decline whereas the Gc remains high until old age, explaining why elderly people maymeet difficulties with unfamiliar material, and yet be highly competent in verbaltasks and in the manipulation of well-known material Psychometric approaches may offer imp ortant methods and inputs for the studyof human intelligence. However, they are in some way theory-opaque becausethey define their constructs on the basis of tasks and statistical indexes [7]. This maynot be a problem in applied fields but can create difficulties when the constructsmust be inserted within a description of psychological functioning. Further more, in certain practical contexts, psychometric indexes may not be entirely adequate,for examp le in the case of an individual who is particularly poor in a specificintellectual component and needs a rehabilitation programme.

The component be rehabilitated and a specific programme devised if its nature and characteristics and its relationship with other cognitive functions are unknown In particular hierarchical theories based on psychometric evidence pose oneserious problem It is not clear to which psychological processes the highest stratum or components correspond. Cognitive Psychology has isolated powerfulcognitive mechanisms that appear to be critical predictors of high level intel-ligence and underlie different cognitive tasks. Reference to these mechanisms could help in the specification of the most central components of humanintelligence. In this context, some classical cognitive studies have been able toshow the relationship between intelligence and efficiency in certain basiccomputations. In a pioneering study, showed that the efficiency inbasic computations, like short-term memory span and the speed in simplecomparisons, predicted individuals' IQ [8]. Along the same line of reasoning, Kail and Salthouse, both separately and together , proposed that basic speed of processing could underlie a series of different cognitive tasks: Smarterpeople are faster; the development of intelligence in children is associated with the development of speed and elderly people lose speed. In this respect, there isevidence that even the speed in very simpl e tasks, for example in the inspectionof simple patterns or lines for giving identity judgements, is highly correlatedwith intelligence [9]. A meta-analysis on 4000cases, found a correlation of .50 between IQ and inspection time. They alsofound that this correlation was not affected by the age of the individuals or bythe nature of the tobe-inspected stimuli. If we consider intelligence according tothe traditional view, i.e., the ability to solve problems and/or to perform complexreasoning tasks, the association of intelligence with speed in doing trivialcomparisons can seem bizarre and unconvincing [10].

Conclusion

Psychology has contributed significantly to theoretical understanding of certain mental processes studied in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. It also shows that neuroscientific research on motor imagery can benefit from increased collaboration with cognitive psychology. Overall, I conclude that the domain of offers cognitive researchers a rich and dynamic natural laboratory in which to study how the mind works.

References

1. Fodor, J. A., The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (1983).

2. Gardner, H., Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books (1993).

3. Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M. L., and Wake, W. K. Intelligence: Multiple perspectives. Brace(1996)..

4. Salthouse, T. A., The processing speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 1996;103, 404-428.

5. Salthouse, T. A., Atkinson, T. M., and Berish, D. E., Executive functioning as a potentialmediator of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 132, 2003;566-594.

6. Espinosa, M., Garcia, L. F., and Escorial S.,Age dedif-ferentiation hypothesis: Evidence from WAIS III. Intelligence, 30, 2002;395-408.

7. Horn, J., Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized generalintelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966;57, 253-270.

8. Grudnik, J. L, Meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence andinspection time. Intelligence, 29, 2001;523-535.

9. May, C. P., The role of interference in memory span. Memory andCognition, 1999;27, 759-767.

10. Vernon, P. A., Intelligence, reaction times, and peripheral nerve conductionvelocity. Intelligence,1992;16, 273-288.

Get the App