PSYC 201 – Second APA Paper Assignment

PSYC 201 – Second APA paper assignment

In this paper you will complete an APA-style research paper that addresses a basic question in psychology: Is there just one basic human ability (i.e., intelligence) or more than one? You are being given the data from 30 Radford undergraduates who each performed six cognitive tasks. Three of these tasks were in the area of memory and three of these tasks involved sensory-motor function. According to the theoretical work on intelligence by Charles Spearman, performance on all types of tasks is driven by a common ability or “mental energy” that he referred to as “g” (short for general intelligence) (Spearman, 1923). If Spearman is correct and there is only one “intelligence”, scores for all six of the tasks you performed should be correlated with scores on all of the other tests. If a person has a lot of g (if they have a high level of general intelligence) they should perform well on all tasks that require intelligence.

In the last 20 years a number of alternatives to Spearman’s views on intelligence have emerged. For example, Robert Sternberg states that we do not possess one type, or source, of intelligence, but three. He refers to these as academic problem-solving, practical intelligence, and creative intelligence (Sternberg & Wagner, 1993). According to this view, high scores on measures of one type of intelligence are not necessarily associated with high scores on measures of either of the other two types of intelligence.

A second alternative view of intelligence has been provided by Howard Gardner (Gardner, 1983). In his work, he proposes that there are seven different human intelligences and that an individual may be gifted or not in any of these seven areas. According to this view, high scores on measures of musical intelligence should be correlated with other measures of musical intelligence, but not with measures of other types of intelligence.

The data we collected in the lab can provide information about which of the two views of intelligence is best supported by the data. Spearman would predict that scores for every measure should be correlated with scores for every other measure. Sternberg and Gardner would predict that (a) measures of memory will be correlated with other measures, (b) measures of sensory-motor function will be correlated with other measures of sensory-motor function, and that (c) measures of memory will not be correlated with measures of sensory-motor function. The purpose of this paper is to use the pattern of correlations among the six tests of cognitive function to determine which of the two basic views of intelligence is better supported by the data.

In the assignment, we have provided several pieces of text to be included in your APA- style paper and have prompted you for other specific pieces of information to include in the full paper. The final draft of the paper is due on Wednesday of the last week of classes. Five points will be deducted for every day the paper is late.

Your paper should include all sections of an APA-style research paper: title page, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, references, at least one table, and at least one figure. Title Page: Generate your own title for the paper. Generate your own title page.

Abstract: You provide the abstract. Make sure you look at the first chapter of the APA Style Manual to see what type of information go into the abstract. Write the abstract after you’ve written the rest of the paper.

Introduction: The first page of this handout provides an informal description of the theoretical background for the study and the specific question that the data for this study can address. You are responsible for writing your own introduction, in your own words. However, you may feel free to paraphrase any of the information from the first page of this handout. You should also read the section of a chapter by Myers that has been placed on Reserve in the library (and is available electronically). It is a chapter on intelligence from a well-known introductory psychology text. Basically, the more work that it looks like you did on the introduction, the better the grade you will receive. Be careful to avoid plagiarizing another author’s work. If you have a question about whether you are plagiarizing or not, or if you need to cite another author or not, please ask either Dr. Pierce or Sara for advice. It is surprisingly easy to detect plagiarism.

The purpose of your introduction is to provide enough background information so that the reader has a clear idea of the research question the data address and the way in which your paper can potentially contribute to the field. The introduction provides a description of work that people have done in the past and an argument for why your data provide address an important question. At some point towards the end of your introduction you should state the goal of the study and describe how your data will allow you to meet this goal.

~~~~~~~~

Introduction

Psychologists have debated the nature of intelligence for well over 100 years. Once central question in defining what it means to be “intelligent” is whether there is one overall source of cognitive achievement – one “intelligence” – or whether human performance is based on the combined action of a number of separate and independent abilities or “intelligences”.

The position that performance in all areas of cognitive function is driven by a unitary “general” intelligence is most commonly attributed to the work of Charles Spearman (1927). Spearman asserted that a common factor, which he referred to as “g”, constituted a general factor of intelligence that influenced performance on practically any kind of task that a person could be asked to perform. Spearman also recognized that performance on a particular task would also be influenced by one or more specific abilities. Specific abilities constituted particular components of performance, such as memory, problem solving, or reaction time. For Spearman, performance on a task was a function of both the general intelligence of a person and the development of the specific abilities relevant to that task. Because every task a could perform was influenced by the general factor of intelligence Spearman believed that scores on a task should be correlated with scores from practically any other kind of task.

In contrast to Spearman’s position are the views of Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg. Both Gardner (1983) and Sternberg (1985) argue against the existence of a general factor of intelligence. They assert instead that performance on any given task is the product of contributions from a number of separate abilities or “intelligences”. These intelligences are independent of each other in the sense that a high level of ability on one form of intelligence is unrelated to the level of ability on anther form of intelligence. Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences proposes seven independent intelligences that include linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily- kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences (Gardner, 1983). Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of intelligence proposes three intelligences that consist of executive function, performance components, and knowledge acquisition (Sternberg, 1990). Although they differ in terms of the number and types of intelligences, both Sternberg and Gardner would propose that performance on a task that is dependent on one form of intelligence would not be related to performance on a task dependent on another form of intelligence.

In the present study participants performed six tasks. Three tasks were in the domain of memory function and three tasks were in the domain of psychomotor function. The goal of these present study was to determine whether the pattern of correlations observed among these six tasks provided stronger support for the unitary concept of intelligence associated with Spearman (1927) or for the multiple intelligences position advocatd by Gardner (1983) and Sternberg (1985). Evidence for a general intelligence would come from a pattern of correlations where every task is significantly correlated with every other task, regardless of the domain of performance it comes from. Evidence in support of independent domains of cognitive performance would be provided by a pattern of correlations in which a) measures of memory function are correlated significantly with each other, b) measures of psychomotor function are correlated with each other, an c) measures of memory function are not correlated significantly with measures of psychomotor function.

Method:

Participants. You write the participants section. Be sure to include (a) the mean and standard deviation for the age of the participants, (b) the number of males and females, and (c) the number of left and right handed participants. The participants were recruited from two sections of PSYC 201 Psychological Research I in the spring 2001 semester.

Materials. We have included the following descriptions of each of the six tests. Tests of cognitive function

Digit-Span test. In this task subjects were read lists of digits and asked to repeat these lists back. On each trial the subject was read a list of digits ranging from one through nine. As soon as the list was read the subject was asked to repeat as many digits back as they could. The first list contained four digits. If the subject provided the name of a digit that was not on the list or failed to provide the name of a digit that was on the list, the subject performed a second trial with four digits. If the subject correctly provided all four digits the subject was read a list with five digits. The same procedure was repeated until the subject incorrectly named the digits on two consecutive trials. The score on this measure is the largest number of digits correctly recalled.

Free recall task. In this task the experimenter read a list of fifteen words to each subject. After the experimenter finished reading the list the subject was asked to provide as many of the words in the list as they could. The score on this task was the number of words correctly recalled from the list.

Delayed Free Recall task. After performance of the Digit Span task, participants were asked to write down as many words as they could from the list of words originally presented in the Free Recall task. The score on this task was the number of words correctly recalled from the list.

Trail Making test. The subject is provided with a sheet of paper with numbers ranging from one to twenty scattered randomly over the page. Each number is represented inside a small circle. Subjects were instructed to place their pen or pencil inside the circle with the “one” in it and to trace a line from the circle with the “one” in it to the circle with the “two” in it and so on until the line entered the circle with the “twenty” in it. Subjects were instructed to trace the line as quickly as they could without making any errors. The score on this measure was the number of seconds to connect all twenty numbers.

Finger tapping. Subjects were asked to place their hands flat on a board and to tap a small lever with the index finger of their dominant hand. Subjects were asked to tap the lever as fast as they could for thirty seconds. The score on this measure was the number of lever presses completed in 30 seconds.

Hand Grip. In this task, subjects were asked to pick up a Hand Grip Dynamometer with their dominant hand. The device contains a pressure gauge that responds to the force with which subjects are able to squeeze two metal bars together. Subjects recorded the force with which they were able to squeeze the dynamometer. Scores were measured in pounds.

Procedure. Data collection took place in two sections of an undergraduate psychological research methods class. Measures of memory function were collected in a small testing room adjacent to the classroom. The graduate teaching assistant for the class administered the tasks separately to each student. Memory tasks were administered in the following order: Free Recall 1, Digit Span Task, Free Recall 2. The measures of psychomotor function were administered by the instructor of the course at a second station located in the class room. In individual testing sessions lasting approximately three minutes the psychomotor tasks were administered in the following order: Trail Making, Finger aping, and Hand Grip. A short survey containing questions on handedness, age, year in college, and participation in sports was completed outside of class and returned at the beginning of the next class period. A debriefing describing the purpose of the experiment was presented at the beginning of the next lab session.

Results:

At the beginning of the results section include the following sentence “Correlations among the six measures of cognitive function are presented in Table 1” (include a table of the correlation matrix). Then include three subsections. Name these (a) “Correlations among measures of memory function”, (b) “Correlations among measures of sensory- motor function”, and (c) “Correlations between measures of memory function and measures of sensory-motor function”. Within each section, report all significant correlations using APA format (an example is provided below). Please also include a Figure (in this case a graph) that shows the scatterplot for one of the significant correlations (Word will import an SPSS chart directly into the document). Tables and Figures are referred to in the result section, but placed at the end of the paper (as described in the APA Publication Manual).

Each section should be in sentence a paragraph form. Do not use bullets in an APA-style paper.

Discussion:

 Remind the reader of the basic research question.  What do the correlations you examined have to say about the theory of intelligence that provides the best explanation for your findings?  What methodological limitations are important to note? Are there any alternative procedures that you would recommend using for addressing the same research question?  Do the results of the present study suggest any different research questions or indicate a logical next step for investigators to take?

References:

I’ve included the references for the following materials: Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:

Basic Books.

Myers, D. G. (1998). Psychology (5th Ed). New York: Worth Publishers.

Spearman, C. (1923). The nature of “intelligence” and the principles of cognition.

London: Macmillan.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York:

Cambridge University Press

Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1993). The g-ocentric view of intelligence and job

performance is wrong. Current Directions on Psychological Science, 2, 1-5.

Tables: include a table of correlations among the six measures

Figures: include a figure of the scatterplot for one of the significant correlations.