Which is the real intelligence? A reply to Robinson (1999)

Robinson's ([Robinson, D.L. (1999). The ‘IQ’ factor: implications for intelligence theory and measurement. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 715–735]) arguments that crystallized intelligence represents the “one valid intelligence factor” are disputed. It is argued that Robinson seriously underestimated the relevance of fluid abilities to “intelligence”, by using an inappropriate criterion for assessing the intelligence-saturation of cognitive ability variables. The relevance of fluid and crystallized abilities to popular, psychometric, and biological conceptions of intelligence is discussed, and the issue of age-related changes in fluid and crystallized intelligence is also addressed.     

高中生成就动机、物理学习成绩对其自我监控的影响

随机选取高中生314名,采用量表和问卷法探讨了成就动机、物理学习成绩对中学生物理问题解决自我监控能力发展的影响。结果表明：1、不同层次的动机,其自我监控能力不同,即高学习目标低成绩目标者监控水平最高,其次是高学习目标高成绩目标者,再是低学习目标低成绩目标者,最后是高成绩目标低学习目标者;2、物理学习成绩越好,中学生物理学习自我监控能力的水平越高。     

关键词对精加工推理的影响作用初探

本实验研究在文本中突出关键词对精加工推理的产生水平和产生阶段的影响。研究采用了让被试阅读后做测试题的方法,通过分析测试题的成绩得出的结果表明：在文章中突出关键词有助于产生近推理和内涵推理,且使这两类推理更有可能在阅读过程中产生。本研究补充了McDaniel和Donnelly 1996年的研究结果。     

Learning How to Generalize

Generalization is a fundamental problem solved by every cognitive system in essentially every domain. Although it is known that how people generalize varies in complex ways depending on the context or domain, it is an open question how people learn the appropriate way to generalize for a new context. To understand this capability, we cast the problem of learning how to generalize as a problem of learning the appropriate hypothesis space for generalization. We propose a normative mathematical framework for learning how to generalize by learning inductive biases for which properties are relevant for generalization in a domain from the statistical structure of features and concepts observed in that domain. More formally, the framework predicts that an ideal learner should learn to generalize by either taking the weighted average of the results of generalizing according to each hypothesis space, with weights given by how well each hypothesis space fits the previously observed concepts, or by using the most likely hypothesis space. We compare the predictions of this framework to human generalization behavior with three experiments in one perceptual (rectangles) and two conceptual (animals and numbers) domains. Across all three studies we find support for the framework's predictions, including individual‐level support for averaging in the third study.     

Who caused it? Interpersonal causal inferences in young children

Three experiments were designed to test 4- and 6-year-old children's causal inferences in interpersonal settings where emotions (glad, angry, and sad) were effect responses. The results showed that emotion and orientation (towards or away from) were central cues, and that sex and age also were used to some extent. Cues related to regularity philosophic notions (e.g. David Hume), such as contiguity in time and space, and time order of cause and effect were little used by comparison. The results raise questions about the basic role attributed to regularity cues both by philosophers and psychologists, and suggest a multiple cue contribution rather than a basic cue generalization approach to causal cognition development.     

归因过程“背景效应假设”的初步实验研究

通过两个实验考证了归因过程的“背景效应假设”：实验1表明,当要求活动者和观察者采用同样的背景事件时．他们之间的归因差异消失了;实验2表明,当有其它的背景信息可供参考时,被试就不再完全按照Kelley所假定的一致性和区别性信息进行归因推断。     

Failure of Retrospective Inference in Rats' Taste Aversion

Three experiments explored the possibility of retrospective inference in the rat. Experiment 1 revealed that poisoning of an element of a taste compound after single compound poisoning enhanced aversion to the other element, and that presentation of an element without poison after the compound poisoning reduced aversion to the other element. These results were opposite to those predicted by retrospective inference. Experiment 2 eliminated some confounding variables and examined the effect of element poisoning after compound poisoning. The result again was opposite to what the retrospective view predicts. The results, however, accorded with the idea that within-compound learning was established during compound presentation, and subsequent poisoning or nonpoisoning of one element affected response to the other element via the within-compound learning. In Experiment 3, the possibility of within-compound learning was reduced by using sequential presentation of tastes, but there was no indication of retrospective inference even under this condition.