Introduction to Psychology – PSYC 201 – 3 Cr.

(Prerequisite:
ENGL 201)

Unit 7 - Thinking, Language, and Intelligence

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

• Understand the meaning of Thinking, language and intelligence

• Describe the elements of problem-solving
• Understand language acquisition
• Explain the different theories of intelligence

Thinking and reasoning

Psychologists define thinking as brain activity in which we mentally manipulate

information, including words, visual images, sounds, or other data.

Thinking transforms information into new and different forms, allowing us to answer
questions, make decisions, solve problems, or make plans.

Mental Images: Examining the Mind’s Eye

To some cognitive psychologists, such mental images constitute a major part of thinking.

Mental images are representations in the mind of an object or event. They are not just
visual representations; our ability to “hear” a tune in our heads also relies on a mental
image.

In fact, every sensory modality may produce corresponding mental images (De Beni,
Pazzaglia, & Gardini, 2007; Gardini et al., 2009; Koçak et al., 2011).

For example, it takes the mind longer to scan mental images of large objects than small
ones, just as the eye takes longer to scan an actual large object than an actual small one.

Similarly, we are able to manipulate and rotate mental images of objects, just as we are
able to manipulate and rotate them in the real world (Mast & Kosslyn, 2002; Zacks, 2008;
Reisberg, 2013; see Figures a, b, c).

1
Some experts see the production of mental images as a way to improve various skills.

For instance, many athletes use mental imagery in their training. Basketball players may
try to produce vivid and detailed images of the court, the basket, the ball, and the noisy
crowd.

They may visualize themselves taking a foul shot, watching the ball, and hearing the swish
as it goes through the net. And it works:

The use of mental imagery can lead to improved performance in sports (Fournier,
Deremaux, & Bernier, 2008; Moran, 2009; Velentzas, Heinen, & Schack, 2011).

Concepts: Categorizing the World

Concepts are mental groupings of similar objects, events, or people.

Concepts enable us to organize complex phenomena into cognitive categories that are
easier to understand and remember (Murphy, 2005; Connolly, 2007; Kreppner et al.,
2011).

For example, if someone asks you what is in your kitchen cabinet, you might say jar of
peanut butter, three boxes of macaroni and cheese, six unmatched dinner plates, and so

2
forth. More likely, though, you would respond by naming some broader categories, such
as “food” and “dishes.”

Concepts help us classify newly encountered objects on the basis of our past experience.

Prototypes are typical, highly representative examples of a concept that correspond to our
mental image or best example of the concept.

For instance, although a robin and an ostrich are both examples of birds, the robin is an
example that comes to most people’s minds far more readily. Consequently, robin is a
prototype of the concept “bird.”

Solving Problems

In the Tower of Hanoi puzzle, The goal of the puzzle is to move all three disks to the third
post, arranged in the same order, by using as few moves as possible (figure 1)

There are two restrictions: Only one disk can be moved at a time, and no disk can ever
cover a smaller one during a move.

Figure 1: The Tower of Hanoi puzzle

Solution: Move C to 3, B to 2, C to 2, A to 3, C to 1, B to 3, and C to 3.)

Why are cognitive psychologists interested in the Tower of Hanoi problem?

Because the way people go about solving such puzzles helps illuminate how people solve
complex, real-life problems.

Psychologists have found that problem solving typically involves the three steps:

3
 • preparing to create solutions (understanding and diagnosing the problem- identify),
• producing solutions (generating solutions), and
• evaluating the solutions (judgement – choose the best solution) that have been
generated.

Preparation: Understanding and Diagnosing Problems

Problems vary from well defined to ill defined.

In a well-defined problem—such as a mathematical equation or the solution to a jigsaw

puzzle—both the nature of the prob- lem itself and the information needed to solve it are
available and clear.

We can make straightforward judgments about whether a potential solution is appropriate.

With an ill-defined problem, such as how to increase morale on an assembly line or to

bring peace to the Middle East.

Not only may the specific nature of the problem be unclear, the information required to
solve the problem may be even less obvious (Newman, Willoughby, & Pruce, 2011;
Mayer, 2013).

Kinds of Problems.

Typically, a problem falls into one of the three categories:

• Arrangement
• inducing structure
• transformation.

Solving each type requires somewhat different kinds of psychological skills and
knowledge.

Arrangement problems require the problem solver to rearrange or recombine elements in

a way that will satisfy a certain criterion.

Anagram problems and jigsaw puzzles are examples of arrangement problems (Coventry
et al., 2003).

In problems of inducing structure, a person must identify the existing relationships among
the elements presented and then construct a new relationship among them.

In such a problem, the problem solver must determine not only the relationships among
the elements but also the structure and size of the elements involved.

4
For example, a person must first determine that the solution requires the following
numbers to be considered in pairs:

14-24-34-44-54-64

Only after identifying that part of the problem can a person determine the solution rule
(the first number of each pair increases by one, whereas the second number remains the
same).

Next number is: 74

Transformation problems - that consist of an initial state, a goal state, and a method for
changing the initial state into the goal state.

In the Tower of Hanoi problem, the initial state is the original configuration, the goal state
is to have the three disks on the third peg, and the method is the rules for moving the disks
(Emick & Welsh, 2005; Majeres, 2007; Van Belle et al., 2011).

Whether the problem is one of arrangement, inducing structure, or transformation, the

preparation stage of understanding and diagnosing is critical in problem solving because it
allows us to develop our own cognitive representation of the problem and to place it
within a personal framework.

Producing/Generating Solutions

After preparation, the next stage in problem solving is the production of possible solutions.

If a problem is relatively simple, we may already have a direct solution stored in long-term
memory, and all we need to do is retrieve the appropriate information.

If we cannot retrieve or do not know the solution, we must generate possible solutions and
compare them with information in long- and short-term memory.

At the most basic level, we can solve problems through trial and error, e.g. Thomas Edison
invented the lightbulb only because he tried thousands of different kinds of materials for a
filament before he found one that worked (carbon).

The difficulty with trial and error, of course, is that some problems are so complicated that
it would take a lifetime to try out every possibility.

In place of trial and error, complex problem solving often involves the use of heuristics,
cognitive shortcuts that can generate solutions.

5
Probably the most frequently applied heuristic in problem solving is a means-ends
analysis, which involves repeated tests for differences between the desired outcome and
what currently exists.

In a means-end analysis, each step brings the problem solver closer to a resolution e.g. my
car is not working (I need to fix), I need to get new battery (where from?) – need to go to
garage (how?)

Although this approach is often effective, if the problem requires indirect steps that
temporarily increase the discrepancy between a current state and the solution, means-ends
analysis might not work.

For example, sometimes the fastest route to the summit of a mountain requires a mountain
climber to backtrack temporarily; a means-end approach—that implies that the mountain
climber should always forge ahead and upward— will be ineffective in such instances.

For other problems, the best approach is to work backward by focusing on the goal, rather
than the starting point, of the problem. Consider, for example, the water lily problem:

“Water lilies are growing on Blue Lake. The water lilies grow rapidly, so that the amount of water surface
covered by lilies doubles every 24 hours. On the first day of summer, there was just one water lily. On the
90th day of the summer, the lake was entirely covered. On what day was the lake half covered?” (Reisberg,
1997)

If you start searching for a solution to the problem by thinking about the initial state on
day 1 (one water lily) and move forward from there, you’re facing a daunting task of trial-
and-error estimation.

But try taking a different approach: Start with day 90, when the entire lake was covered
with lilies.

Given that the lilies double their coverage daily, on the prior day only half the lake was
covered. The answer, then, is day 89, a solution found by working backward (Bourne et
al., 1986; Hunt, 1994).

Another heuristic commonly used to generate solutions is to divide a problem into

intermediate steps, or subgoals, and solve each of those steps.

For instance, in our modified Tower of Hanoi problem, we could choose several obvious
subgoals, such as moving the largest disk to the third post.

Insight: Sudden Awareness

6
Some approaches to generating possible solutions focus less on step-by-step heuristics
than on the sudden bursts of comprehension that one may experience during efforts to
solve a problem.

In a classic study the German psychologist Wolfgang Köhler examined learning and
problem-solving processes in chimpanzees (Köhler, 1927).

In his studies, Köhler exposed chimps to challenging situations in which the elements of
the solution were all present; all the chimps needed to do was put them together.

In one of Köhler’s studies, chimps were kept in a cage in which boxes and sticks were
strewn about, and a bunch of tantalizing bananas hung from the ceiling, out of reach.

Initially, the chimps made trial-and-error attempts to get to the bananas: They would
throw the sticks at the bananas, jump from one of the boxes, or leap wildly from the
ground.

Frequently, they would seem to give up in frustration, leaving the bananas dangling
temptingly overhead. But then, in what seemed like a sudden revelation, they would stop
whatever they were doing and stand on a box to reach the bananas with a stick.

Köhler called the cognitive process underlying the chimps’ new behavior insight, a
sudden awareness of the relationships among various elements that had previously
appeared to be unrelated.

Consequently, the chimps’ behavior may simply represent the chaining together of
previously learned responses, no different from the way a pigeon learns, by trial and error,
to peck a key (Fields, 2011; Wen, Butler, & Koutstaal, 2013; also see Applying Psychology
in the 21st Century).

Kohler’s experiment of the monkey Sultan video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwDhYUlbxiQ

Judgement: Evaluating Solutions

The final stage in problem solving is judging the adequacy of a solution.

Often this is a simple matter: If the solution is clear—as in the Tower of Hanoi problem—
we will know immediately whether we have been successful (Varma, 2007).

If the solution is less concrete or if there is no single correct solution, evaluating solutions
becomes more difficult. In such instances, we must decide which alternative solution is
best.

7
Impediments to Solutions:

Consider the following problem-solving test illustrated (in Figure 2) (Duncker, 1945)
where you are given a set of tacks, candles, and matches, each in a small box, and told
your goal is to place three candles at eye level on a nearby door so that wax will not drip
on the floor as the candles burn. How would you approach this challenge?

Figure 2: Candle problem

Most people cannot solve it when it is presented in the manner illustrated in the figure, in
which the objects are inside the boxes.

However, if the objects were presented beside the boxes, just resting on the table, chances
are that you would solve the problem much more readily - which, in case you are
wondering, requires tacking the boxes to the door and then placing the candles inside
them (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: the answer to the candle problem

8
Several factors can hinder the development of creative, appropriate, and accurate
solutions.

Functional Fixedness and Mental Set

The difficulty most people experience with the candle problem is caused by functional
fixedness, the tendency to think of an object only in terms of its typical use.

For instance, functional fixedness probably leads you to think of this book as something to
read instead of its potential use as a door-stop.

In the candle problem, because the objects are first presented inside the boxes, functional
fixedness leads most people to see the boxes simply as containers for the objects they hold
rather than as a potential part of the solution. They cannot envision another function for
the boxes.

Creativity and Problem Solving

One enduring question that cognitive psychologists have sought to answer is what factors
underlie creativity, the ability to generate original ideas or solve problems in novel ways.

Why are some people better at finding good solutions than other people?

To explore this for yourself, make a list of all the uses you can think of for a glass jar.

Highly creative individuals show divergent thinking, thinking that generates unusual, yet
appropriate, responses to problems or questions.

This type of thinking contrasts with convergent thinking, which is thinking in which a
problem is viewed as having a single answer and which produces responses that are based
primarily on knowledge and logic.

Language Development
To parents, the sounds of their infant babbling and cooing are music to their ears (except, perhaps, at three
o’clock in the morning). These sounds also serve an important function. They mark the first step on the road
to the development of language.

Babbling

Children babble—make speech-like but meaningless sounds—from around the age of 3

months through 1 year.

9
After the age of 6 to 8 months, that ability begins to decline. Infants begin to “specialize”
in the language to which they are exposed as neurons in their brains reorganize to
respond to the particular phonemes infants routinely hear.

Some theorists argue that a critical period (age of 2 – puberty) exists for language
development early in life in which a child is particularly sensitive to language cues and
most easily acquires language.

In fact, if children are not exposed to language during this critical period, later they will
have great difficulty overcoming this deficit (Bates, 2005; Shafer & Garrido-Nag, 2007).

In one case, for example, a girl named Genie was exposed to virtually no language from
the age of 20 months until she was rescued at age 13. She was unable to speak at all.
Despite intensive instruction, she learned only some words and was never able to master
the complexities of language (Rymer, 1994; Veltman & Browne, 2001).

Understanding Language Acquisition

Psychologists have offered three major explanations:

• one based on learning theory,

• one based on innate processes, and
• one that involves something of a combination of the two.

Learning-Theory Approaches: Language as a Learned Skill.

The learning-theory approach suggests that language acquisition follows the principles of
reinforcement and conditioning discovered by psychologists who study learning.

For example, a child who says “mama” receives hugs and praise from her mother, which
reinforce the behavior of saying “mama” and make its repetition more likely.

This view suggests that children first learn to speak by being rewarded for making sounds
that approximate speech.

In support of the learning-theory approach to language acquisition, the more that parents
speak to their young children, the more proficient the children become in language use.

Nativist Approaches: Language as an innate Skill

Pointing to such problems with learning-theory approaches to language acquisition,

linguist Noam Chomsky (1968, 1978, 1991) provided a groundbreaking alternative.

10
Chomsky argued that humans are born with an innate linguistic capability that emerges
primarily as a function of maturation.

According to his nativist approach to language, humans are biologically pre-wired to

learn language at certain times and in a particular way.

The nativist approach argues that the human brain has an inherited neural system that lets
us understand the structure language provides—a kind of universal grammar.

Supporting Chomsky’s view is evidence collected by neuroscientists that suggests that the
ability to use language, which was a significant evolutionary advance in human beings, is
tied to specific neurological developments.

For example, scientists have dis- covered a gene related to the development of language
abilities that may have emerged as recently—in evolutionary terms—as 100,000 years
ago.

Furthermore, it is clear that there are specific sites within the brain that are closely tied to
language and that the shape of the human mouth and throat are tailored to the production
of speech.

(Broca’s area [speech production/articulation] and Wernicke’s area [comprehension]. (left

hemisphere of the brain)(see figure 4)

Figure 4: Words and the Brain

11
Critics to Chomsky’s view such as learning theorists, contend that the apparent ability of
certain animals, such as chimpanzees, to learn the fundamentals of human language
contradicts the innate linguistic capability view.

Interactionist Approach

The interactionist approach suggests that language development is produced through a

combination of genetically determined predispositions and envi- ronmental circumstances
that help teach language.

Supporters of the interactionist approach suggest that the brain is hardwired for our
acquisition of language, in essence providing the “hardware” that allows us to develop
language.

However, it is the exposure to language in our environment that allows us to develop the
appropriate “software” to understand and produce language.

Do Animals Use Language?

Many animals communicate with one another in rudimentary forms. For instance, fiddler
crabs wave their claws to signal, bees dance to indicate the direction in which food will
be found, and certain birds call “zick, zick” during courtship and “kia” when they are
about to fly away.

Psychologists, however, have been able to teach chimps to communicate at surprisingly

high levels. For instance, after 4 years of training, a chimp named Washoe learned to
make signs for 132 words and combine those signs into simple sentences.

Even more impressively, Kanzi, a pygmy chimpanzee, has linguistic skills that some
psychologists claim are close to those of a 2-year-old human being.

Kanzi’s trainers suggest that he can create grammatically sophisticated sentences and can
even invent new rules of syntax (Savage-Rumbaugh, Toth, & Schick, 2007; Slocombe,
Waller, & Liebal, 2011).

Despite the skills primates such as Kanzi display, critics contend that the language such
animals use still lacks the grammar and the complex and novel constructions of human
language.

Instead, they maintain that the chimps are displaying a skill no different from that of a dog
that learns to lie down on command to get a reward.

12
Furthermore, we lack firm evidence that animals can recognize and respond to the mental
states of others of their species, an important aspect of human communication.

Consequently, the issue of whether other animals can use language in a way that humans do remains
controversial (Hillix, 2007; Liszkowski et al., 2009; Beran, Smith, & Perdue, 2013).

Intelligence

To psychologists, intelligence is the capacity to understand the world, think rationally, and
use resources effectively when faced with challenges.

Is intelligence a unitary attribute, or are there different kinds of intelligence?

Theories of Intelligence: Are There Different Kinds of Intelligence?

Is intelligence a single, general ability, or is it multifaceted and related to specific abilities?

Early psychologists interested in intelligence assumed that there was a single, general
factor for mental ability, which they called g, or the g-factor. (g for general intelligence)

The assumption was that there was a general, global intellectual ability underlying
performance on the various measures—the g-factor.

This general intelligence factor was thought to underlie performance in every aspect of
intelligence, and it was the g-factor that was presumably being measured on tests of
intelligence (Spearman, 1927; Colom, Jung, & Haier, 2006; Haier et al., 2009; Major,
Johnson, & Bouchard, 2011).

More recent theories explain intelligence in a different light.

Rather than viewing intelligence as a unitary entity, some psychologists consider it to be a

multidimensional concept that includes different types of intelligence (Stankov, 2003;
Sternberg & Pretz, 2005; Tutwiler, Lin, & Chang, 2013).

Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence

Some psychologists suggest that there are two different kinds of intelligence: fluid
intelligence and crystallized intelligence.

Fluid intelligence is the ability to reason abstractly. It reflects our ability to reason
effectively, identify patterns, and recognize relationships between concepts.

If we were asked to solve an analogy or group a series of letters according to some

principle, we would be using fluid intelligence e.g. solve a puzzle in a game (Kane &
Engle, 2002; Saggino, Perfetti, & Spitoni, 2006; Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2009).

13
In contrast, crystallized intelligence is the accumula- tion of information, knowledge, and
skills that people have learned through experience and education.

It reflects our ability to call up information from long-term memory. We would be likely to
rely on crystallized intelligence, for instance, if we were asked to participate in a
discussion about the solution to the causes of poverty, a task that allows us to draw on our
own past experiences, education, and knowledge of the world.

The differences between fluid intelligence and crystallized intelli- gence become
especially evident in late adulthood, when people show declines in fluid, but not
crystallized, intelligence (Buehner, Krumm, & Ziegler, 2006; Tranter & Koutstaal, 2008;
Ackerman, 2011).

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences: The Many ways of showing intelligences

Psychologist Howard Gardner has taken an approach very different from traditional
thinking about intelligence.

Gardner argues that rather than asking “How smart are you?” we should be asking a
different question: “How are you smart?”

In answering the latter question, Gardner has developed a theory of multiple intelligences
that has become quite influential (Gardner, 2000; Kaufman, Kaufman, & Plucker, 2013).

Gardner argues that we have a minimum eight different forms of intelligence, each
relatively independent of the others:

• Musical: Skills in tasks involving music

• Bodily kinesthetic: skills in using the whole body or various portions of it in the
solution of problems or in the construction of products or displays, exemplified by
dancers, athletes, actors, and surgeon

• Logical-mathematical: skills in problem solving and scientific thinking

• Linguistic: skills involved in the production and use of language

• Spatial: skills involving spatial configurations, such as those used by artists and
architects

• Interpersonal: skills in interacting with others, such as sensitivity to the moods,

temperaments, motivations, and intentions of others

14
 • Intrapersonal: knowledge of the internal aspects of oneself; access to one’s own
feelings and emotions

• Naturalist: ability to identify and classify patterns in nature

• Existentialist Intelligence: which involves identifying and thinking about the

fundamental questions of human existence. (thinking philosophically) e.g. Dalai
Lama

In Gardner’s view, each of the multiple intelligences is linked to an independent system in the brain.

Moreover, although the nine basic types of intelligence are presented individually, Gardner suggests that
these separate intelligences do not operate in isolation. Normally,

Practical and Emotional Intelligence

Practical intelligence is intelligence related to overall success in living (Sternberg, 2000,

2002; Muammar, 2007; Wagner, 2002, 2011).

Sternberg points to evidence showing that most traditional measures of intelligence do not
relate especially well to career success (McClelland, 1993).

Academic success is based on knowledge of a specific information base obtained from

reading and listening. Practical intelligence is learned mainly through observation of
others’ behavior.

People who are high in practical intelligence are able to learn general norms and
principles and apply them appropriately.

In addition to practical intelligence, Sternberg argues there are two other basic,
interrelated types of intelligence related to life success: analytical and creative.

Analytical intelligence focuses on abstract but traditional types of problems measured on

IQ tests, whereas creative intelligence involves the generation of novel ideas and products
(Benderly, 2004; Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2004; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd,
2005).

Some psychologists broaden the concept of intelligence even further beyond the
intellectual realm to include emotions.

Emotional intelligence is the set of skills that underlie the accurate assessment, evaluation,
expression, and regulation of emotions (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004; Humphrey,
Curran, & Morris, 2007; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008).

15
Emotional intelligence is the basis of empathy for others, self-awareness, and social skills.
It encompasses the ability to get along well with others. It provides us with an
understanding of what other people are feeling and experiencing, which permits us to
respond appropriately to others’ needs.

These abilities may help explain why people with only modest scores on traditional
intelligence tests can be quite successful: the basis of their success may be a high
emotional intelligence, which allows them to respond appropriately and quickly to others’
feelings.

Assessing Intelligence

Psychologists who study intelli- gence have focused much of their attention on the
development of intelligence tests that quantify a person’s level of intelligence.

These tests have proved to be of great benefit in identifying students in need of special
attention in school, diagnosing specific learning difficulties, and helping people make the
best educational and vocational choices.

Historically, the first effort at intelligence testing was based on an uncomplicated but
completely wrong assumption: that the size and shape of a person’s head could be used as
an objective measure of intelligence.

The idea was put forward by Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911), an eminent English scientist
whose ideas in other domains proved to be considerably better than his notions about
intelligence.

Galton’s motivation to identify people of high intelligence stemmed from personal

prejudices. He sought to demonstrate the natural superiority of people of high social class
(including himself) by showing that intelligence is inherited.

He hypothesized that head configuration, which is genetically determined, is related to

brain size and therefore is related to intelligence.

Galton’s theories were proved wrong on virtually every count. Head size and shape are
not related to intellectual performance, and subsequent research has found little
relationship between brain size and intelligence.

However, Galton’s work did have at least one desirable result: He was the first person to
suggest that intelligence could be quantified and measured in an objective manner
(Jensen, 2002).

Binet and the Development of IQ Tests

16
The first real intelligence tests were developed by the French psychologist Alfred Binet
(1857–1911).

He believed that if performance on certain tasks or test items improved with

chronological, or physical, age, performance could be used to distinguish more intelligent
people from less intelligent ones within a particular age group.

On the basis of this principle, Binet devised the first formal intelligence test, which was
designed to identify the “dullest” students in the Paris school system in order to provide
them with remedial aid.

This first Intelligence test focused on attention, memory and problem-solving skills

In the end he came up with a test that distinguished between the bright and dull groups,
and - with further work - one that distinguished among children in different age groups
(Binet & Simon, 1916; Sternberg & Jarvin, 2003).

On the basis of the Binet test, children were assigned a score relating to their mental age,
the age for which a given level of performance is average or typical.

Assigning a mental age to students provided an indication of their general level of

performance.

However, it did not allow for adequate comparisons among people of different
chronological ages. By using mental age alone, for instance, we might assume that an 18-
year-old responding at a 20-year-old’s level would be demonstrating the same degree of
intelligence as a 5-year-old answering at a 7-year-old’s level, when actually the 5-year-old
would be displaying a much greater relative degree of intelligence.

A solution to the problem came in the form of the intelligence quotient (IQ), a measure of
intelligence that takes into account an individual’s mental and chrono- logical (physical)
age.

IQ and Heritability

There is no doubt that intelligence shows high heritability

Intelligence depends partly on environmental factors and partly on genes.

Research on twins has suggested that 50%-80% of the variation in general intelligence
between people could be down to genes.

The more critical question to ask, then, is not whether hereditary or environmental factors
primarily underlie intelligence, but whether there is anything we can do to maximize the
intellectual development of each individual.

17