The plasticity of intellectual development: insights from preventive intervention.
The plasticity of intellectual development: insights from preventive intervention.
复制标题
智力发展的可塑性：预防性干预的见解。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00433.x
复制
发表时间：
1984
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
E. Short
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Ramey;K. Yeates;E. Short
关于智力可塑性的争论通常是由两个不同的发展领域之间的混淆引起的，即发展功能（例如，一个群体的平均智商随着时间的推移）和个体差异（例如，群体中个体智商的相对排名顺序）之间的差异。关于这两个领域稳定性的问题在统计上是独立的。因此存在两种智力可塑性，它们之间可能没有发展趋同。在本研究中，我们使用了一个早期干预项目的数据，分别对这两种可塑性进行了研究，并考察了它们之间可能存在的某些趋同之处。该项目涉及有发育迟缓风险的儿童，他们在出生时被随机分配到两种养育条件下（即教育日托和无教育干预），然后对他们的智力发展进行纵向研究，直到4岁。我们的研究结果表明，通过系统的早期教育，发育功能是适度可变的，尤其是在婴儿期之后，而个体差异是适度稳定的，尤其是在婴儿期之后。它们还表明，这两种可塑性是相互独立的；日托对发育功能的改变既不影响个体差异的稳定性，也不影响个体差异的决定因素。我们将讨论这些发现对当前心理发展模型的影响，对先天-后天之争的影响，以及对早期干预计划有效性的争论。
Debates regarding the plasticity of intelligence are often fired by a confusion between 2 distinct realms of development, that is, between developmental functions (e.g., a group's average IQ over time) and individual differences (e.g., the relative rank ordering of individual IQs within a group). Questions concerning the stability of these 2 realms are statistically independent. Thus there are 2 kinds of intellectual plasticity, and there may be no developmental convergences between them. In the present study, data from an early intervention program were used to investigate the 2 kinds of plasticity separately and to examine certain possible convergences between them. The program involved children at risk for developmental retardation who were randomly assigned at birth to 2 rearing conditions (i.e., educational daycare vs. no educational intervention) and whose intellectual development was then studied longitudinally to 4 years of age. Our findings indicate that developmental functions are moderately alterable through systemic early education, particularly after infancy, whereas individual differences are moderately stable, again particularly after infancy. They also indicate that the 2 kinds of plasticity are independent; the alteration of developmental functions through daycare affects neither the stability nor the determinants of individual differences. We discuss the implications that these findings have for current models of mental development, for the nature-nurture debate, and for arguments concerning the efficacy of early intervention programs.