intelligence is defined in a variety of ways.

For
example, intelligence may be described as a set of mental abilities; the capacity to acquire and
use knowledge; problem-solving skills and knowledge about the world; the ability to excel at a
variety of tasks; or as a skill that allows us to understand, adapt, learn, reason, and overcome
obstacles. Which point of view should we choose? First, most definitions include the word
knowledge. Intelligence is knowing and understanding the reality. Then, most definitions
draw attention to problem solving, which leads to an assumption that intelligence is a set of
mental skills that helps individuals to reach goals. Intelligence is also an ability to use knowledge
and skills in order to overcome obstacles. And finally, intelligence helps in the adaptation
to changing conditions.
Such an inclusive understanding of intelligence can be useful for cross-cultural psychologists
because it allows them to incorporate the cultural factor in the discussion of intelligence.
Indeed, people live in different environments and acquire knowledge and skills necessary to
pursue goals and adapt to different cultural settings.
Intelligence is also inseparable from cognition, a diversified process by which the
individual acquires and applies knowledge. It usually includes processes such as recognition,
categorization, thinking, and memory.
There are several scientific approaches to intelligence. Let us consider them briefly, using
the previous vignette as a starting point for discussion.
Some researchers, especially during the earlier stages of intelligence testing at the
beginning of the twentieth century, suggested the existence of a general factoror central
cognitive functionthat determines a certain level of performance on a variety of cognitive
tasks (Spearman, 1927). The existence of this central cognitive function was evidenced by a
set of positive correlations among performances on verbal, spatial, numerical, and other
assessment problems. People with high academic ranking tended to score well on measures
such as general knowledge, arithmetic ability, and vocabulary. On the contrary, people with
low scores on verbal tasks were likely to have low scores on other tests.
Over the years, the idea of one factor that determines intellectual functioning has been
frequently challenged. One such critic, Thurstone (1938), proposed the existence of not only
one but rather three intellectual skills: verbal, mathematical, and spatial.
Sternberg (1985, 1997) also supported a hypothesis about a multidimensional structure
of intelligence and suggested the existence of three fundamental aspects of intelligence, that is,
analytic, creative, and practical. According to his arguments, most intelligence tests measured
only analytic skills. Analytic problems in the test are usually clearly defined, have a single
correct answer, and come with all the information needed for a solution. On the contrary,
practical problems are usually not clearly defined. The person has to seek additional information
and offer various correct solutions to the problem under consideration. To solve these
problems successfully, the person would need to have accumulated everyday experiences and
be motivated enough to find the solution. From the beginning of the empirical studies of intelligence,
culture was claimed to be
its important contributor. For example, Piaget (1972) argued that intelligence has similar
cross-cultural developmental mechanisms. On one hand, children in all countries assimilate
new information into existing cognitive structures. On the other hand, these cognitive
structures accommodate themselves to the changing environment. Vygotsky, a Russian
psychologist, (1978) believed that intelligence could not be understood without taking into
consideration the cultural environment in which the person lives.

EXPLAINING GROUP DIFFERENCES IN TEST SCORES: INTELLIGENCE

AND INTELLIGENT BEHAVIOR
In an attempt to explain some group differences on intelligence test scores, Sternberg (1997)
suggested distinguishing between intelligence and intelligent behavior. Intelligence, from his
standpoint, is a mental process that may or may not result in particular behavioral responses.
These behaviors vary from culture to culture. Something considered intelligent among
members of one culture may not be viewed as such in other cultures. If a Washingtonian
knows how to negotiate the conditions of a three-year lease with a car dealer, this skill may not
beand likely will not bevery useful at a farm market in Istanbul or Helsinki. Dealing with

different cultural contexts, people develop different cognitive skills and acquire dissimilar
ways of thinking and learning that are useful in their particular cultural environment. Take,
for example, the way people use categories to describe their experience. Traditionally, among
navigators in Southeast Asia, the word south is often used to refer only to seaward, which
can be any side of the horizon (Frake, 1980). This centuries-old understanding of directions is
inappropriate and confusing to visiting foreigners.
However, people may share some general understandings about what intelligence is because
the underlying psychological mechanisms of intelligence are expected to be quite similar in all
individuals.Among these processes are abilities to understand a problem, identify its type, prepare
a solution, find resources to solve the problem, manage the process of solution, and, finally, evaluate
the outcome of behavior. Neverthelessand this is a key element in the understanding of
intelligent behaviorthe specific content of such behavior in each of these stages is determined
by the specific environment in which the individual lives (Farhi, 2007). A chess master in India
uses these strategies to make particular moves on a chessboard, whereas a farmer in Bosnia, using
the same psychological mechanisms, secures a good deal buying a new tractor.
Reasoning that is causal, scientific, and based on empirical facts is not applicable in all
cultures all the time (Shea, 1985). A ritualistic dance of a Brazilian tribesman may be considered
unintelligent behavior by many people in London or Tokyo: Look at him, he is dancing
to stop the rain, some taunt sarcastically. These same taunting individuals, however, go
every week to their temples and churches and, by doing this, commit themselves to similar
ritualistic acts. Moral? People develop cognitive skills best adapted to the needs of their
lifestyle (Dasen et al., 1979).

EXPLAINING GROUP DIFFERENCES IN TEST SCORES: INTELLIGENCE

AND INTELLIGENT BEHAVIOR
In an attempt to explain some group differences on intelligence test scores, Sternberg (1997)
suggested distinguishing between intelligence and intelligent behavior. Intelligence, from his
standpoint, is a mental process that may or may not result in particular behavioral responses.
These behaviors vary from culture to culture. Something considered intelligent among
members of one culture may not be viewed as such in other cultures. If a Washingtonian
knows how to negotiate the conditions of a three-year lease with a car dealer, this skill may not
beand likely will not bevery useful at a farm market in Istanbul or Helsinki. Dealing with
different cultural contexts, people develop different cognitive skills and acquire dissimilar
ways of thinking and learning that are useful in their particular cultural environment. Take,
for example, the way people use categories to describe their experience. Traditionally, among
navigators in Southeast Asia, the word south is often used to refer only to seaward, which
can be any side of the horizon (Frake, 1980). This centuries-old understanding of directions is
inappropriate and confusing to visiting foreigners.
However, people may share some general understandings about what intelligence is because
the underlying psychological mechanisms of intelligence are expected to be quite similar in all
individuals.Among these processes are abilities to understand a problem, identify its type, prepare
a solution, find resources to solve the problem, manage the process of solution, and, finally, evaluate
the outcome of behavior. Neverthelessand this is a key element in the understanding of
intelligent behaviorthe specific content of such behavior in each of these stages is determined
by the specific environment in which the individual lives (Farhi, 2007). A chess master in India
uses these strategies to make particular moves on a chessboard, whereas a farmer in Bosnia, using
the same psychological mechanisms, secures a good deal buying a new tractor.
Reasoning that is causal, scientific, and based on empirical facts is not applicable in all
cultures all the time (Shea, 1985). A ritualistic dance of a Brazilian tribesman may be considered
unintelligent behavior by many people in London or Tokyo: Look at him, he is dancing
to stop the rain, some taunt sarcastically. These same taunting individuals, however, go
every week to their temples and churches and, by doing this, commit themselves to similar
ritualistic acts. Moral? People develop cognitive skills best adapted to the needs of their lifestyle (Dasen
et al., 1979

DO BIOLOGICAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTE TO INTELLIGENCE?

According to the nativist view, most cognitive phenomena are inborn. They unravel as a
result of biological programming, and environmental perception requires little active
construction by the organism. Hypothetically, according to this view, a boy in Nepal or a girl
in Venezuela are both expected to develop some elements of conceptual thinking by approximately
the age of seven. No one can make these children think conceptually when they are
four years old. This view argues that hereditary factors determine both the depth and scope
of our intellectual skills.
These are not just the empty statements of a handful of researchers. In the 1980s, two
scientists asked more than 1,000 scholars to give their opinion about IQ, in particular about
the differences in IQ scores among ethnic groups. Even though only 1 percent suggested that
the differences are always caused by genetic factors, almost 45 percent of the professionals
reported that the differences are the product of both genetic and environmental variations
(many could not or did not want to give a definitive answer). Remarkably, of all those interviewed
only one in seven said that the difference is entirely due to environmental factors
(Snyderman & Rothman, 1988). French neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene (2002) maintains
that the mathematical ability of humans may be imbedded in the brain and could be generally
independent of memory and reasoning.Moreover, an individuals learning experience, school
programs, and even spoken language (like French) may even suppress the development of certain
inborn mathematical skills. Dehaene also argues that some languages, like Chinese, may
be more helpful to develop a persons basic natural mathematical abilities.
Further support to the assumption that an individuals ability to be successful on cognitive
tests is somehow biologically programmed and may be less dependent on this persons
educational effort comes from a study conducted by Derek Briggs (2001).He found that young
people who take preparation courses for college admission tests (such as the SAT in the United
States) show only a small improvement in their scores. In other words, whether people study for
this test or not, the results of these two groups are likely to be the same. Although some critics
reasoned that the conclusions of this study simply pointed out the little effectiveness of the
preparation courses, others suggested that certain cognitive skills cannot be improved over a
short period of time, which indicates the existence of deeper roots of these skills.
There is evidence that heredity plays an important role in human intelligence. For
example, the intelligence scores of identical twins raised either together or apart correlate
almost +0.90 (Bouchard et al., 1990). One study of 543 pairs of identical twins and 134
pairs of nonidentical twins in Japan reported a substantial heritability of 0.58 for IQ
(Lynn & Hattori, 1990). About two dozen studies conducted using magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) to measure the volume of the human brain have found an overall correlation
with IQ (Vernon et al., 2000). Twenty-five percent of cases of mental retardation are
caused by known biological defects (Grossman, 1983). Moreover, the intelligence scores of
adopted children strongly correlate with the scores of their biological parents, whereas
there is only a weak correlation between scores of adoptive parents and adopted children
(Munsinger, 1978). The correlation between the IQ scores of two biologically unrelated
individuals, who were raised together, is also relatively low: +0.20 (Bouchard & McGue,
1981). It is also known that vocabulary size, or the number of words a person remembers
and uses in his or her communications, may depend on genetic predispositions. However,
even though various data suggest high correlations between parents and children and
brothers and sisters in terms of their intellectual skills, these data tell little about what would happen to
peoples IQ scores if they lived in a different social context than the one in
which they actually grew up.Moreover, genetic links for individual differences and similarities
do not imply that group differenceson the national level, for exampleare also
based on genetic factors (Sternberg, 2004). The fact that the heritability of IQ is high does
not mean that individual differences in intellectual functioning are permanent. It shows
that some individuals are probably genetically predisposed to be more teachable, more
trainable, and more capable of learning skills than others, under current conditions and
within specific cultural contexts (Lynn & Hattori, 1990).
Besides genetic factors, cross-cultural psychologists examine how particular environmental
conditions affect human physiology and whether such biological changes influence

cognitive skills. It was found, for instance, that the presence or absence of a particular chemical
in a specific geographic region might have affected the overall cognitive performance of
the population living in that territory. To illustrate, iodine-deficient areas are found in some
regions of Indonesia as well as in Spain. Clinicians report that substantial iodine deficiency
in the human body can cause severe mental and neurological abnormalities (see Bleichrodt
et al., 1980). In accordance with predictions, cognitive test scores obtained from children
living in iodine-deficient areas of Spain and Indonesia were much lower than the scores
obtained from children residing in neighboring areas where the water contained sufficient
amounts of iodine.

INCOMPATIBILITY OF TESTS: CULTURAL BIASES

Our friend Roberto, a psychologist from Miami, designed a test to measure the decision-making
skills in small-business managers. Could he use this test in Colombia, Chad, or any other country?
Yes, he can try. But will his assessments of decision making in these countries be accurate? In
Chapter 2 we learned about equivalency, one of the important requirements of any comparative
research. If a test were designed for a particular ethnic group, the test questions or tasks may not
have similar meaning for other cultural groups. Many specialists (Berry, 1988; Mishra, 1988;
Poortinga & Van der Flier, 1988) emphasize the importance of such issues as culture fairness
and test transfer.
Theoretically, cognitive processes are believed to be similar in virtually all healthy
individuals of different groups. However, these processes are applied to various, personspecific
environmental, social, psychological, and cultural circumstances (Cole et al.,
1971). People develop dissimilar cognitive skills because they are shaped by different contexts.
A girl who goes to a private school in Paris, stays with her 45-year-old single mother,
and has her own bedroom and personal computer lives in an environment that is quite
different from that of a North Korean boy who shares his room with two siblings, attends
public school, does not have a personal computer, and has very young parents who work in
a shoe factory. A test may adequately measure some elementary cognitive skills in these two
children, but at the same time it can be of a little use in terms of measuring other, culturespecific
cognitive skills.
Most intelligence tests benefit specific ethnic groups because of the test vocabulary
words and items used in the test questions. For instance, tests may contain internal bias
because they use words that are familiar only to some groups. As a result, members of