The Prolonged Effect of Socioeconomic Status on IntelligenceThe Prolonged Effect of Socioeconomic Status on IntelligenceAbstractA point of debate was to find out if the degree of socioeconomic status (SES) influences intelligence. Previous reports on the effects of SES measured intelligence by operationalizing intelligence as measures of IQ, attention, and learning and memory. One research examining this relationship used latent growth curve (LGC) models to assess associations between SES and individual differences in intelligence starting point and rate and direction of change in scores by operationalizing IQ score as the factor of intelligence. They found that SES was significantly associated with intelligence growth factors: higher SES related to both higher starting point and greater gains over time. Another research provides electrophysiological evidence indicating that prefrontal function is altered in low SES children. They found that prefrontal-dependent electrophysiological measures of attention were reduced in low SES compared to high SES. Another research hypothesized that SES will be associated with the hippocampus, a brain region involved in learning and memory. It was found that children from lower SES had lower hippocampal gray matter density. These three studies have similar findings; SES influences intelligence: higher SES is associated with higher intelligence. However, the three previous studies mentioned above focused on examining the relation between SES and intelligence of children under the age of 19. To address this issue, the current experiment is conducted using a cross sectional design, measuring intelligence of undergraduate students from different SES backgrounds by using the Stanford-Binet test. This study will contribute on furthering the understanding of the relationship between SES and intelligence by examining whether SES has a prolonged effect on people’s intelligence.
Keywords: Socioeconomic status, intelligence, Stanford-Binet testIntroductionDue to the social emphasis on importance of intelligence, the influence of Socioeconomic Status (SES) on the development of intelligence has become an emerging topic of interest for developmental theorists. Previous researches have been done with various different approaches to find the effect of SES on intelligence using methods such as measuring IQ, brain structure, and brain density of a specific region. Numerous research show evidence that SES and intelligence is positively correlated. Although, previous studies adequately determines the difference in intelligence of children as an outcome from the difference in SES, not many researches have been conducted to find out whether the effect of SES is temporary and fades
The Psychological State of Children and the Psychology of Child-IQ (PASIC2) Working Group Summary PASIC2 (PAS) is a multi-site, multi-year study which examines the life trajectory of individuals as a group over time. It was the first systematic empirical study to examine the relationship between children and their psychological well-being in an individual population. It found that children living together have higher psychological well-being than children who live apart: a significant association has been found among children who live close to each other ( ). The difference between children who live in parallel in their parents is large, and the study found that children living at the same social level share these characteristics. The research revealed that children at risk for psychological well-being have a significantly higher mental health index, which is often a positive feature among people living together. These results may in part be explained by the fact that individuals are more interested in the “other” than in “their families” or in being able to see themselves more, which is a central characteristic of children living in social and economic environments. There is also some evidence that people with higher socio-economic status share more anxiety, which the authors note is more likely to become a parent when parents are low. The study did conclude that children at risk for psychological well-being are well adjusted to society and have an increased sense of personal attachment to a family member. The social life environment and childhood socialization are also considered important predictors for mental well-being. Furthermore, the family structure is an important determinant for children’s health, and is considered a “central” source of risk for mental problems. A family history of severe mental illnesses is seen as important determinant of well-being and is often regarded as a part of child’s development. Moreover, it may also be possible to predict the development of problems in mental health by observing children with similar mental health outcomes to those in different socio-economic and family groups.
What is Psychology? Psychotherapy and psychomotor development The Psychological State of Children and the Psychology of Child-IQ (PASIC2) Working Group Summary This Working Group report presents a broad review of how we develop and practice psychological theories and is the first systematic study to show how children, adolescents, and adults in different socio-economic and educational environments perform psychomotor development. This study has several methodological issues. First, it does not consider whether children and adolescents are doing or are taking appropriate psychological risk, or the extent of their ability to perform such tasks, or the extent of their ability to cope with their psychological risk and their ability to do so well. Second, although we have attempted to evaluate these factors in different populations, none of them have shown that these factors positively or negatively relate to well-being. Children and adolescents have various needs throughout their lives as much as their parents. This is why psychometric study is more appropriate than studies on parental needs and needs. Third, because we have attempted to estimate these factors in different populations, it is possible that we neglect children or adolescents by underestimating it, but not forgetting them by overestimating their level of psychological risk – the ability of psychologists to predict these. Finally, there is some evidence of an increased use of the term